Yushui Village in Lijiang, Yunnan, with snow mountain backdrop and cascading waterfalls.
2/16/2007
budget 2007
After listening to the brief over the news, the 2007 budget came across as a pleasing budget. And all the MSM are painting glowing reports on it. So it will be a waste of time for me to write another glowing report here. I will need to spend a little time to digest what the budget is all about.
My immediate disappointment is that I am not getting the 10% of what they gave to the President. But please don't blame me for my little indulgence in fantasy. It is a very good package. But what Zulkifli Baharuddin said needs a little reflection. 'We're are not giving away anything for free.' What is it that we have not seen? What is the catch?
So far I have not heard of anything about using the GST increase to set up a research centre to study on how to help the lower income group. Neither did I hear any tie up with Harvard or Cambridge to lend credibility to the increase in GST. And no setting aside of the excesses for the future. The govt is collecting $1.5 billion more a year and spending $4 billion over 5 years. Now how much of a dollar collected is returned to the low income group?
Let's enjoy the feel good sensation for a while and look at the details carefully. Nothing is given away for free.
"Returning" dollars to the low income group?
ReplyDeleteWhat the fuck redbean? Just because one has a low income means that one has an automatic claim to public money — money paid by compulsion from the productivity of others?
Are you advocating THEFT or 'charity by force"? Which one?
All taxes are bad, but if there is to be a state, taxes are necessary and in congruence with the nature of a state. Governments unfortunately are not voluntary market players — they govern by force, i.e. making the require "legislation" to get things done. And thus they raise the required revenue by TAXES.
But the Singapore Govt has CUT corporate taxes to 18%. This is good, and I hope it can go down more to perhaps 5 or 10% tops.
Unfortunately, they raised the GST to 7%. I can tell you, with a burgeoning economy now to be buoyed further by a cut in corporate tax, the revenue "lost" by cutting corporate tax will be more than made up by a rise in GST. I would be surprised if we see a surplus.
The same consequence happened when the govt introduced COEs and ERPs — they collected a fortune — much more than their own estimates.
It is not good for the state to be so rich, because it has to take from the productivity of the people. Wealth is best kept with the private citizens and private foreign investors, not the state.
I support tax reform ONLY IF the govt gets smaller and if there is a reduction in state power.
did they give anything away?
ReplyDeleteshould the people say a big thank you to the govt?
who is paying for all these giveaways?
if we organise our state in an order that the state must constantly take to give away, something is fundamentally wrong. and the giveaway is not only to the naturally unabled, but also to those who are supposed to be able.
What is the real problem?
The real problem is having a state in the first place.
ReplyDeleteWhen the state gets involved in "helping" a certain group, it does so by screwing another group.
When help is completely voluntary — like private charity — no one gets screwed (unless of course the private charity is tied to the state, then we'd get more of the same — I am of course referring to the N*F)