Property in Singapore taxed less than food and water...why?

[alvinaloy]

And you also believe the rich will stay put and let the government increase their tax, haven't you heard of Eduardo Saverin? (he renounced his U.S. citizenship; to reduce the capital gains taxes on his Facebook IPO)

There's nothing to prove that he did it to avoid tax. Or that even if he was taxed, it would have been a substantial sum for him.

Basically I disagree about not taxing the rich more. It's not about penalising the handworking and efficient. The rich has in their possession more disposable capital which makes it easier to earn more. They have tools available to them that money can buy that are not available to the poor.

 

[wallacetan]

Tax is not the answer

 

[wallacetan]

One example to make the rule?

For some strange reason, my pc log me into the thread on fallacies today. Now I know why...

So I guess you would not want to save $67 Million if you were in his shoes?

Or you believe rich people are really stupid?

 

[wallacetan]

Don't be an ingrate

However, do remember that the 'rich' did not get rich because you can easily call 'Checkmate' on them. They always have another 'move' up their sleeve. The 'move' which you call a 'loophole'.

If these so called 'rich' friends of yours are merely freeloaders, seeking loopholes in the current taxation system to fund their otherwise unaffordable luxuries, then their absence is no 'loophole' but good riddance, Singaporeans do not need such freeloaders who exploit the loopholes of public charity.

Even a Pri 6 maths student knows 7% of $0 is going to be $0 (zero dollars).
Is this the tax revenue you are looking for?

Or you prefer 70% of $0?

How do we REDISTRIBUTED EQUALLY $0?
How much will you and I get?

At least the "freeloaders" are paying more tax dollars then you ever would in your lifetime, so say "Thank you".

Don't be an ingrate.

Exercise some personal responsibility and use your own hands, legs and head to make your own money, don't use the force of government to rob from the "rich", just because you have green tinted eyes.

Isn't the 'rich' paying 10x more tax-dollars then the 'poor' already?
How much more equitable do you want?

How about the 'rich' pay 100x more tax-dollars then the 'poor'?

You think 'Rich' people are so stupid, stay in Singapore and let Government tax them to death?
You think Singapore is the only and best place in the world?
You forget that we are only a little red dot.
Global competition prevents us from raising taxes.

When the 'Rich' had enough, they will leave Singapore.
You will get 100x of $0 which is 100x of ZERO!, ZILCH!, NADA!, KOSONG!, NOTHING!

... any increase in property taxes collected in going forwards be REDISTRIBUTED EQUALLY amongst ALL Singapore citizens (aged 0-120yrs) with PRs (residing here at least 182 days or more) receiving about half as a 'National Cohesion Dividend' (NCD)...

 

[wallacetan]

Remember the Golden Rule?

Did I do NS just to see my GST bill unnecessarily increase come 2017?
...
Pls tell me, did I do NS just to see my GST bill unnecessarily increase come 2017?

You do not want to pay more Taxes (GST).
What makes you think the "rich" wants to pay more Taxes?

Remember the Golden Rule?

"Do to no one what you yourself dislike." - Tobit 4:15

己所不欲，勿施於人。
"What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others." - Confucius

Where is your humanity?

And you question my humanity?

 

[sunzoner]

So I guess you would not want to save $67 Million if you were in his shoes?

Or you believe rich people are really stupid?

If you are correct, there will be no rich people left in USA or UK as all of them will be in Singapore...

 

[wallacetan]

If you are correct, there will be no rich people left in USA or UK as all of them will be in Singapore...

If you believe the rich will stay put, why not increase the tax more?
50% ?
80% ?
100%?

 

[Inix]

Wow! This thread is back!

Kindly clarify: "Other self-inflicted cost of living issues by the government did that.": 'self-inflicted' and 'government' are mutually contradictory items in the same sentence.

Its not mutually contradictory. The PAP Government directly allowed our current spate of high inflation to occur.

1: Accommodation Costs - This CAN be controlled by the PAP. They refused to.

2: Transport Costs (I'm not talking about oil) - This CAN be controlled by the PAP. They refused to.

3: Hawker Costs - This CAN be controlled indirectly by the PAP. They are only starting to take action now.

The shortage of housing resulted in a housing boom, which also resulted a rental boom. The fact that we now have 20% more people chasing the same amount of resources meant that prices only have 1 way to go. Up. There is nothing the PAP could have done to prevent oil prices from shooting up.

But they shot themselves in the food by allowing housing, rental and other costs to jump through the roof.

 

[Inix]

Anyway, since we're on Tax. Anyone received your NOA yet? Its tax paying season.. Oh well....

 

[wallacetan]

H. L. Mencken, “A government at bottom is nothing more than a group of men, and as a practical matter most of them are inferior men.…Yet these nonentities, by the intellectual laziness of men in general…are generally obeyed as a matter of duty [and] assumed to have a kind of wisdom that is superior to ordinary wisdom.”

Most people see a world full of problems that can best be tackled via wisely applied laws. They assume it’s just the laziness, stupidity, or indifference of politicians that prevents the problems from being fixed. But government is force, and government is inefficient. The inefficient use of force creates more problems than it solves.

10 characters.

 

[cherry6]

Ha ha, just a 1:26min excerpt.

Your video quote seems to pertain to income taxes rather than consumption taxes since the MEP (Daniel Hannan) did imply that govt revenue should be from consumption rather than income (from the rich spending more).

Nothing is mentioned in the video specifically about property taxes to which this thread pertains (nor the concept of consumption taxes under which the concept of property tax subsumes). The income tax context of the video is thus irrelevant to this topic of discussion.

Your video reference is thus inappropriate and unhelpful in the context of this discussion.

 

[cherry6]

Harmonized property taxes for a harmonious and peaceful society

Harmonized property taxes for a harmonious and peaceful society.

Source thread: Property in Singapore taxed less than food and water...why?
Lemonade Stand Economics - Penalizing Productivity

Day 1
Girl: "Is this a ROBBERY?"
Tax-man: "No, it's a little something we like to call Taxation. It's where we take income from those who make quite a bit, and give it to those who haven't make nearly as much.."
Day 2
Girl: "TWO? Yesterday you only needed ONE!"
Tax-man: "But yesterday you didn't make as much money, and if you learn anything, the more you make the more we take."
Let us all punish the 'rich' untill they leave us with NOTHING.

The a/m video is also inappropriate and unnecessary to this discussion in so far as it pertains to income taxes rather than consumption taxes (the category under-which property taxes subsume)- please stop deviating from the topic

I have already mentioned that it is unfair and unnecessary for the rich to pay lesser property taxes on luxuries such as helicopter pads, private car parks and boating berths/docks/ jetties, swimming pools, saunas, tennis courts, mini-golf courses, private lawns etc etc just simply for the fact that these are surrounded by a fence within which their residences subsume. As such a flat rate of property tax is necessary, and according to the rate of GST, a streamlined recommendation would be 7% (unless it is further raised).

On 8June2012, PM Lee HL said: "Surely within the next 20 years, the government of the day will need new sources of revenue, which means raising taxes" [see pict below/ link]

Unless U are able to suggest to PM Lee some ways of reducing govt expenditure, I would rather like to see a harmonization of property taxes with GST rates rather than a singular raising of GST rates (which affects the poor more severely) whilst the rich bathe in luxury at 'discount' property tax rates of between 0 - 6% p.a. (PS: the middle class poor who don't own their own properties pay imputed property tax rates of 10% as that is the current property tax payable on 'non-owner occupied' residential properties).

If any discounts upon property tax be given, then it should be based upon the leasehold status of the property so as to impute 'progressiveness' into the taxation system (all HDB, BTO and EC are leasehold FYI).

If taxes are to be raised, then it should be across the board, unilaterally penalizing the poor due to their lack of political clout is unfair and inequitable and divisive to society. The poor shouldn't be regarded as just minions of the rich, the poor too are human, deserving of love and dignity.

[pict source: Singapore's growth expected to slow in next decade - Channel NewsAsia ]

 

[cherry6]

Singaporeans have dignity and are not prostitutes to the rich; the rich must likewise pay to enjoy s

Singaporeans have dignity and are not prostitutes to the rich; the rich must likewise pay to enjoy space.

Thread source: Property in Singapore taxed less than food and water...why?
Wow, you still believe it is right to steal.
I thought the one of the 10 commandments is "Thou shalt not steal"?
And you still believe the government knows how to allocate resources best without wastage.
And you also believe the rich will stay put and let the government increase their tax, haven't you heard of Eduardo Saverin? (he renounced his U.S. citizenship; to reduce the capital gains taxes on his Facebook IPO)

Please note that according to the Bible, Jesus Christ did say "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21) [Wikipedia].

Taxation IS NOT theft in so far that the government has been legitimately elected and thus has democratic backing in the legislature for its revenue/ expense policies.

Whilst I appreciate your reservations about the prudence of Singapore government expense ['Seeking clarity over $2,200-bike purchase by NParks']['Is $575 chair too expensive for civil servants?'], my only aim in the starting of this thread would be to highlight the unfairness in which poorer Singaporeans are actually paying higher rates of consumption taxes relative to richer residents in so far as the owner occupiers of properties in Singapore pay below the standard 7% GST rate for whatever luxuries they are able to encircle within the fences of their residence.

I shall refrain from commenting about your reference to Eduardo Saverin as again your example pertains to 'income taxes' and not the context of this thread which is of consumption taxes.

In any case, I sincerely hope that Mr Saverin is a decent and sensible person who has chosen Singapore Citizenship out of conviction that the laws of our nation state might afford him a greater means to make contributions to the world and not merely for the purpose of evading taxes of his parent country in prelude to his new found wealth consequent to the Facebook IPO. ['The Folly Of Eduardo Saverin']

In fact, although Singapore does not have a capital gains tax, I understand that if Capital gains are the main source of one's income, then the same can be considered as income tax (or perhaps withheld through lien by the Singapore government until such time that the shares are disposed off).

In short, neither Singapore nor its government should become prostitutes to the rich (Singaporean / otherwise). Singaporeans I believe have brains and should be able to enact laws which are progressive and thus equitable and fair to all, such that the rich are respected for their greater (and not lesser) contribution to society.

The following are some examples of physical of prostitution present in western states. The reverence of Singaporeans for $$$ should not degenerate into this state, literal or otherwise.

[pict source]

[pict source]

[pict source]

 

[wallacetan]

Singaporeans have dignity and are not prostitutes to the rich; the rich must likewise pay to enjoy space.

my only aim in the starting of this thread would be to highlight the unfairness in which poorer Singaporeans

The 'rich' have already paid more then the 'poor' when they purchased the space and luxuries that you apparently are so envious about.
How is that unfair to the 'poor'?

Why do you feel the need to punish the 'rich' and their 'rich' behavior?
What have the 'rich' ever done to you that you hold this wrath against them?

Do you wish the 'rich' to build their future luxurious house, swimming pool, tennis courts, gymnasiums, parking lots, private pier and helipad in other countries besides Singapore?

Singaporeans should lose future job opportunities to design, develop, construct, manage and maintain 'rich' people future luxurious house, swimming pool, tennis courts, gymnasiums, parking lots, private pier and helipad?

Have you considered the unintended consequences of your proposed tax hike?

Whilst I appreciate your reservations about the prudence of Singapore government expense ['Seeking clarity over $2,200-bike purchase by NParks']['Is $575 chair too expensive for civil servants?']

While you punish the 'rich' behavior, you want to reward the Gluttony and Greedy behavior of government.

Why don't you propose lowering taxes for the 'poor' instead?
I would definitely support it.

Or you prefer to continue this path and commit all Seven deadly sins?

 

[cherry6]

Rent-seeking culture dampens entrepreneurial spirit

Rent-seeking culture dampens entrepreneurial spirit

thread source (HWZ/5/2012): Luxury in Singapore taxed less than food and water...why?
... because rich Singaporeans and Foreigners shouldn't luxuriate at the expense of the poor.
On 03May2012, a Singaporean offered to sell his 12000 sqft(built-in), 20000 sqft / (land) bungalow for $108Million 'S$108m for a Sentosa Cove home' [TODAY, 09May2012].... ...

So the reason why property taxes in Singapore today are so low (~4% only) and do not benefit citizens who maximize its use is because many of the cronies of our leaders enjoy the rent seeking culture, where U cream off the sweat and brains of others and enjoy a life of ever inflating property bubbles RENT SEEKING???!! How is it fair for GST to be raised to 10% whilst the rich continue lavishing themselves in their palaces attracting at most 6% property tax.

Should Sinkaporeans pay the same property tax as foreigners even after 2.5yrs of toil for basically free in National Service?: please raise residential property tax to 7% in line with GST (or 10% when GST is raised), and give each a property tax annual value waiver of S$6000 per Singaporean occupant or tenant, so that large families living in landed property efficiently will be encourage to stay close and still not feel left out. (PRs will get S$3000 AV waivers per occupant pax, provided they stay in Singapore at least 6 months a year: half the AV waiver that Singaporeans get).

It costs in excess of S$12billion p.a. to run the SAF, along with the un-renmunerated sweat and blood of young men to keep Singapore safe, neither do Singapore politicians come cheap (their pay is very high) foreigners who want to enjoy this safe living/ business environment must accept the taxes everyone pays. Singaporeans get the discounts cos they do NS, eligible foreigners are encouraged to be citizens (must give up former citizenship, kids/ self must serve NS) to enjoy a citizen's benefits too.
Article: Rent-seeking culture dampens entrepreneurial spirit

The Straits Times, Published on Feb 13, 2014
PROPERTY COOLING MEASURES
Rent-seeking culture dampens entrepreneurial spirit
PROPERTY developers and agents should refrain from using words and phrases like "unnerving" and "not sustainable" when referring to the current state of the property market ("CDL chief calls for review of property cooling measures"; last Saturday).
Did they use the same terms when property prices spiralled out of control and Singaporeans found themselves mired in lifelong mortgage debt?
The Government should examine Singaporeans' longstanding love affair with real estate investment and its impact on our competitiveness and entrepreneurship.
If one can buy property and collect rent while waiting for the inevitable price appreciation, what incentive is there for one to be entrepreneurial and make money from activities that generate real value for the economy?
This rent-seeking culture is detrimental to Singapore's long-term social and economic development.
It took seven rounds of cooling measures to tame the property beast.
We should not let it loose until sanity has been restored to the market.
Lim Yiak Tiam

Rent-seeking culture dampens entrepreneurial spirit
Copyright © 2014 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

Pending more images and explanation too....Akan datang...

[pict source]

 

[cherry6]

GST rate linked property taxes for a progressive nation state.

GST rate linked property taxes for a progressive nation state.
Increasing residential property tax across the board to MATCH GST will certainly go a long way to curb property price speculation.Pls charge property tax at EQUAL to the GST level but with rebates for Singaporeans. The Annual Value (AV) rebate should be S$6000 per annum per citizen (half for PRs)(based upon the median mkt price annual rental for single HDB room), so if U have a house with 10 Singaporeans staying and AV is $100K, the AV rebate would be S$60K, the consequent taxable amount will be S$40K, at 7% AV tax, the tax payable will be S$2.8K; (at 10%GST, it will be S$4K, p.a.(BOTH affordable even compared with current 2014 "discounted" rates)).

Of course, if the same house were solely tenanted by a foreigner family, then the AV property tax payable would be S$7K (@7%GST equivalent), S$10K (@10% GST equivalent)(foreigners are not entitled to property tax waivers unless they become citizens/ PRs).

Much more fair this way because some bigger families stay in big house NOT because they are rich, but because they have close knit families and enjoy the kampong spirit: they are equally important to Singapore, and thus shouldn't be taxed more just by virtue of their good family relationships.
Pls note that every Singaporean male does NS for pittance allowance, the $6K/ citizen (tenant/ otherwise) AV rebate should thus apply ACROSS THE BOARD to recognize every Singaporean as belonging to Singapore...
The SAF budget was SGD 12.08 billion (1 in every 4 dollars spent by government) (FY2011): property owners who are non Singaporean/ Singaporeans who live in excessively large properties should thus pay what is in excess of their entitlement of defence cost of Singapore.

Based on very nebulous IRAS Website: http://www.iras.gov.sg/irasHome/page04.aspx?id=2094
Example: AV of your house is $100,000 (Owner occupied), Property Tax payable (2014) is:
First $8,000 X 0% = $ 0
Next $47,000 X 4% = $1,880
Next $5,000 X 5% = $250
Next $10,000 X 6% = $600
Next $15,000 X 7% = $ 1050
Next $15,000 X 9% = $1350
Tax payable for 2014: = $5,130.

Large Singapore families ['We're the Tan family - 80 under one roof']:

The Straits Times, Published on Feb 13, 2014
PROPERTY COOLING MEASURES
Rent-seeking culture dampens entrepreneurial spirit
PROPERTY developers and agents should refrain from using words and phrases like "unnerving" and "not sustainable" when referring to the current state of the property market ("CDL chief calls for review of property cooling measures"; last Saturday).
Did they use the same terms when property prices spiralled out of control and Singaporeans found themselves mired in lifelong mortgage debt?
The Government should examine Singaporeans' longstanding love affair with real estate investment and its impact on our competitiveness and entrepreneurship.
If one can buy property and collect rent while waiting for the inevitable price appreciation, what incentive is there for one to be entrepreneurial and make money from activities that generate real value for the economy?
This rent-seeking culture is detrimental to Singapore's long-term social and economic development.
It took seven rounds of cooling measures to tame the property beast.
We should not let it loose until sanity has been restored to the market.
Lim Yiak Tiam
Rent-seeking culture dampens entrepreneurial spirit
Copyright © 2014 Singapore Press Holdings. All rights reserved.

PS: Author is no relation to the 80 member Tan family, just thought GST linking would be a fairer way to of rent seeking amongst property owners, Singaporean or otherwise: destroying the fabric of a cohesive Singapore bringing light to the world.

Tags:
GST, property, taxes, progressive, economics, government, Singapore, poverty, wealth, defense spending, budget,

 

[sunzoner]

I would imagine it is easier to exempt the owner occupied property from the property tax.

But then again, cherry6 seems so happy to increase tax to maintain "equity". I guess to him/her it makes more logic to tax everyone using the same percentage while forgetting that GST is regressive and most people stay in their own flat (property)...

 

[cherry6]

I would imagine it is easier to exempt the owner occupied property from the property tax.
But then again, cherry6 seems so happy to increase tax to maintain "equity". I guess to him/her it makes more logic to tax everyone using the same percentage while forgetting that GST is regressive and most people stay in their own flat (property)...

Hi Sun, that is why I say for EACH Singaporean occupant (defined as absent from Singapore for no longer than 9 months/ year), get $6K AV rebate p.a. Singaporeans who rent apartments would thus be favored ABOVE foreigners since by citizenship, they would be entitled to some rebates which the landlord can (hopefully) return them as rental rebates (would be calculated easily as 7% X $6000= S$420 property tax discount per person): thus a single room Singaporean tenant would receive like $35 discount off monthly rental, yes, not much, but still $$$ to the poor.

As already mentioned, some Singaporeans live in mansions like S$108M Sentosa cove bungalow and keep their harem of foreign woman in their mini kingdom, some of these women might even work as prostitutes and to pay 'rent' to their master, whom by your theory would NOT pay property tax. Please don't tell me that SAF is for free cos NSman in SAF work for free, but still, it coasts at least $12Billion ++ to run SAF annually, so only fair that those staying in relatively larger properties pay their fair share with equitable recognition for their rights as Singaporeans.

Thus like GST rebates given out to turn the regressive GST system progressive for low income families, the 'regressiveness' of GST linked property AV taxes can be made progressive with equitable AV rebates for Singaporeans (PRs get half). Otherwise, on an overall level, how do U account to the average citizen that the $108M Sentosa bungalow enjoys the national security coverage by SAF/ police/ SCDF but yet enjoy national level based services all FOR FREE??? Are some Singaporean citizenships worth more than others, time for some equability in property taxation I think.

 

[cherry6]

IRAS: How Annual Value for property tax is determined:

IRAS: How Annual Value for property tax is determined:

Thread source(A1): GST rate linked property taxes for a progressive nation state.
One question... What is this "Annual Value (AV)" thing is??? Surely it doesn't mean the value of the property??? For eg, if you property is valued at SG$1 million dollars??? The tax sounds rather high...

1. How is Annual Value (AV) determined?
A) Buildings
The AV is the estimated annual rent of your property if it were to be rented out, excluding the furniture, furnishings and maintenance fees. It is estimated based on market rentals of similar or comparable properties. The basis of determining the AV is the same whether the property is rented out, owner-occupied or left vacant. If your property is rented out, the AV could be higher or lower than your actual rents as the AV reflects the market rent at the time of review, while your actual rents were committed earlier.
Illustration (A):
Estimated market rent of your flat is $1,000 per month
Annual Value is: $1,000 x 12 = $12,000
*Property Tax payable is derived by subsequently applying the relevant tax rate (%) on the AV.
Why AV is derived based on rental instead of transacted sale price?
The rental transactions of comparable properties are used to estimate the AV of the property, for two reasons. First, there are generally more rental transactions than sales transactions to allow AV to be determined for each property based on comparable properties. Second, movements in sale prices are more volatile than rentals. Hence, using rental transactions to derive the AV helps to keep property tax more stable for property owners. This practice of using market rents to determine the AV is also adopted by other countries like Hong Kong and Malaysia.

As property tax is a wealth tax based on property ownership, the property tax should take account of the prevailing value of the property as determined from prevailing rental transactions instead of historical purchase price. Using historical purchase price to estimate AV would be inequitable towards newer owners because for similar and comparable properties, the property tax would differ depending on the time of purchase.
Rental information on Private Apartments and HDB Flats.
IRAS: Know your property tax: How is Annual Value determined

 

[cherry6]

Pre GST linking to property taxes, some picts:...

Pre GST linking to property taxes, some picts:...


Budget 2013: More progressive property tax rates for Singaporean households
To make the tax system more progressive, the Government is raising property tax rates for high-end residential properties in Singapore Budget 2013, with the largest increases applying to investment properties that are not occupied by their owners.
The majority of owner-occupied homes will have lower tax rates in Singapore Budget 2013.
Owner-occupied residential properties:

[Img Source][alt img site]

Non-owner-occupied residential properties:

[Img Source][alt img(non-owner occ)site]