Results 1 to 24 of 24

Thread: Wealth Inequality In America vs Singapore

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,318

    Default Wealth Inequality In America vs Singapore

    Video on the Wealth Inequality In America http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQ...ature=youtu.be

    Singapore's wealth disparity should be very similiar to USA, maybe worse.

    According to Singstats's key household income trends 2012 http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/pape...ple/pp-s19.pdf, Singapore's Gini cofficient is a very high 0.478 (before taxes and govt transfers), higher than China's 0.474. USA's Gini Coefficient in 2011 is 0.475 (before taxes and govt transfers). According to a UN report in 2009, Singapore has the 2nd highest income inequality in the world behind Hong Kong and ahead of USA http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-bud...-rich-and-poor

    The 2012 median monthly income of a Singaporean is $1,900 (excluding employer CPF contribution) and S$2,127 (including employer CPF contribution).

    Strange that I cannot find data on the average monthly income or annual income of a Singaporean in the percentiles range in the Singstat document. The best that I can find is the average household income per household member.

    The 2012 average monthly household income per household member (excluding employer CPF contribution)
    The bottom 10% percentile = S$410
    The 11%-20% percentile = S$780
    The 21%-30% percentile = S$1,080
    The 31%-40% percentile = S$1,386
    The 41%-50% percentile = S$1,715
    The 51%-60% percentile = S$2,111
    The 61%-70% percentile = S$2,598
    The 71%-80% percentile = S$3,308
    The 81%-90% percentile = S$4,563
    The top 10% percentile = S$10,962


    The 2012 average monthly household income of a Singaporean (including employer CPF contribution)
    The bottom 10% percentile = S$440
    The 11%-20% percentile = S$856
    The 21%-30% percentile = S$1,200
    The 31%-40% percentile = S$1,547
    The 41%-50% percentile = S$1,917
    The 51%-60% percentile = S$2,355
    The 61%-70% percentile = S$2,893
    The 71%-80% percentile = S$3,658
    The 81%-90% percentile = S$5,004
    The top 10% percentile = S$11,552


    Can't find any data for the average monthly or annual income of the top 1% of Singaporeans in the Singstat document. But from the above income stats, it looks like Singapore's wealth inequality should be very similar to the video on America's wealth inequality.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,763

    Default

    Are u saying we are a nation of masters and slaves?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    1,763

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by indomie
    Are u saying we are a nation of masters and slaves?
    Or landlords and tenants?

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    705

    Default

    Usually, mean or average will not be used for some reasons (obviously could either skew the picture or actually better reflect it ).

    Hence, median ......


    Quote Originally Posted by seletar
    Video on the Wealth Inequality In America http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQ...ature=youtu.be

    Singapore's wealth disparity should be very similiar to USA, maybe worse.

    According to Singstats's key household income trends 2012 http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/pape...ple/pp-s19.pdf, Singapore's Gini cofficient is a very high 0.478 (before taxes and govt transfers), higher than China's 0.474. USA's Gini Coefficient in 2011 is 0.475 (before taxes and govt transfers). According to a UN report in 2009, Singapore has the 2nd highest income inequality in the world behind Hong Kong and ahead of USA http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-bud...-rich-and-poor

    The 2012 median monthly income of a Singaporean is $1,900 (excluding employer CPF contribution) and S$2,127 (including employer CPF contribution).

    Strange that I cannot find data on the average monthly income or annual income of a Singaporean in the percentiles range in the Singstat document. The best that I can find is the average household income per household member.
    .... ....

    Can't find any data for the average monthly or annual income of the top 1% of Singaporeans in the Singstat document. But from the above income stats, it looks like Singapore's wealth inequality should be very similar to the video on America's wealth inequality.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,318

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cheerful
    Usually, mean or average will not be used for some reasons (obviously could either skew the picture or actually better reflect it ).

    Hence, median ......

    It would be useful for Singstats to provide the average annual income of a Singaporean in each percentile range, like they do for monthly household income per resident household member. It gives a clearer picture of the income distribution for Singaporeans, strange that they don't provide that because they do have these statistics.

    According to the committee reviewing Singapore ministers' salary back in Jan 2012 http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori...174694/1/.html
    The committee recommended a pay formula based on the median salary of the top 1,000 earners, who are Singapore citizens, with a 40 per cent discount. With the discount, the pay is actually closer to the top 1,400th earner.

    As the top 1,400th earner, the ministers pay could be pretty closer to the average income of the top 1% of Singaporeans. Their annual pay is S$1.1 million, but don't know if that includes bonuses. Their bonuses are huge.

    According to the new ministerial pay structure, the proposed variable component made up of bonuses and the Annual Variable Component (AVC) is capped at 13.5 months, down from the maximum of 23.5 months of variable pay a minister can earn previously.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    8,926

    Default

    it is more useful to use median family income which is about 7k+
    Ride at your own risk !!!

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    500

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phantom_opera
    it is more useful to use median family income which is about 7k+
    But median income per household individual only 2k plus.. How come per household is 7k plus? Normally one household is 2 working adult so is 2 x 2k plus.. How to reach 7k plus?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,318

    Default

    http://sg.news.yahoo.com/tax-income-...093350717.html

    Tax income of the rich even more: WP’s Sylvia Lim


    By Jeanette Tan | Yahoo! Newsroom – 05 Mar 2013




    WP Chairman Sylvia Lim speaks at a press conference. (Yahoo! file photo)


    Singapore’s income tax system can be changed to place a larger burden on the rich than what has been proposed, said Workers’ Party (WP) chairman Sylvia Lim.

    Speaking on the opening day of the Budget debate in Parliament on Tuesday, Lim argued that there is room for greater differentiation in the existing tax system, as the threshold that exceeds the current maximum bracket of $320,000 in annual income includes a wide range of professions, from university professors to bankers who earn in the range of millions of dollars annually.

    “I believe Singaporeans on the whole see the wisdom and need for this (more progressiveness), including those who are better off,” she said. “There should be a fair contribution towards our fellow citizens and to the country as a whole.”

    Currently, any income earner in Singapore who earns more than $320,000 per year pays a flat rate of 20 per cent in taxes.

    In her speech, the Aljunied Member of Parliament proposed adding more tiers to income earners who fall above the $320,000 mark — for those earning between $500,000 and $700,000 to be taxed 22 per cent, between $700,000 to $1 million 24 per cent and for earners above the $1 million mark, 25 per cent.

    “Even at a maximum income tax rate of say 25 per cent, such a top rate would still be low globally,” she noted. “While some may argue that such a move might reduce our attractiveness as a destination to high-earners, I believe Singapore would still have major selling points to them, such as the ease of doing business and low corporate tax rates.”

    Review rental housing rates: Png

    Also speaking on Tuesday was Hougang single member constituency MP Png Eng Huat, who suggested measures to further lower the current burden that exists on lower-income workers.

    Png spoke about the cost of food and rental housing, as well as the potential effectiveness of the changes to the Workfare Income Supplement (WIS) and the new Wage Credit Scheme.

    Under the revised employee CPF contribution rates, Png noted that low wage workers will see their take-home pay shrink, and the increments in Workfare payouts will still result in a very marginal rise in overall take-home pay. Factoring in an average 2 to 3 per cent of core inflation for this year, the additional amount is “as good as gone”, he added.

    “Although there are measures like GST vouchers and S&CC (Service and Conservancy charges) rebates to help Singaporean families cope with rising cost of living, having some cash at hand before the next pay day comes is what low income families would welcome more,” said Png, calling for a further increment of WIS cash payouts to 50 per cent instead of the revised 40 per cent.

    Turning to rental housing, Png noted that higher wages for some low-income workers would mean higher rent. The rent for occupants of one-room flats would increase from $33 to $90 per month, a close to 300 per cent jump when a worker’s salary crosses the $800 mark, he pointed out.

    Png also said the net increase in a low-wage worker’s take-home pay from National Wage Council guidelines will not be sufficient to service his revised rental.

    After factoring in the increased CPF contribution rate (from 17 to 20 per cent), a higher WIS payout and the subsequent increment in rental, Png said a worker in this situation “is better off” without the NWC’s recommended wage increase since he will actually end up poorer.

    “’What the left hand giveth, the right hand taketh away’ is probably what some of them will feel,” said Png, urging the National Development Ministry (MND) to look into devising “more reasonable” rental tiers to better assist low-wage workers.

    Png also called on the National Environment Agency to strive to keep hawker stall rental “reasonable” and “subsidised”, in order to keep food prices more affordable. He suggested a fixed rental of $320 a month for new stalls in the nine upcoming planned hawker centres that were announced by the MND in 2011, in order to “create jobs, keep hawker food affordable and ensure Singaporeans, young or old, remain economically active”.

    “This is the least the government can do for these Singaporeans to make up for those lost years of their working lives earning meagre salaries while helping Singapore to grow,” he said.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,318

    Default

    http://www.cnbc.com/id/100523684

    Swiss Rethink Relationship With World’s Super-Rich

    Financial Times
    Published: Tuesday, 5 Mar 2013 | 1:11 PM ET

    By: James Shotter


    Switzerland and the world's super-rich have long been an item. The country's banking sector, famous for its centuries-old private banks such as Pictet, Mirabaud, and Lombard Odier, manages SFr5.3 trillion of wealth, SFr2.7 trillion of which is drawn in from abroad.

    Meanwhile, many of the Alpine state's cantons, such as Zug and Bern, have become home to scores of the world's wealthiest people thanks to special tax regimes for rich foreigners who live but do not work in Switzerland.

    Over the years, these special deals – which tax wealthy immigrants according to the value of their properties in Switzerland rather than their global assets or income – have lured in luminaries ranging from the racing driver Michael Schumacher to the singer Tina Turner and the Russian tycoon Viktor Vekselberg.

    However, the zeal with which Swiss citizens on Sunday backed the curbs on executive pay is just the latest sign that Switzerland's relationship with the ultra-wealthy is beginning to change.

    Not only was the referendum – which among other things bans golden hellos and goodbyes and gives shareholders a binding vote on executive pay – approved by each of Switzerland's 26 cantons, but the 68 percent approval rate was also one of the country's highest Yes votes ever.

    The signs of unease go far beyond the referendum, the initiative of entrepreneur-turned politician Thomas Minder. In recent years, several cantons have got rid of their special tax regimes for wealthy foreigners: Zurich took the lead in 2009, and has since been followed by Schaffhausen, Appenzell-Ausserrhoden and Basel. Other cantons have tightened up their special regimes, even if they have not done away with them altogether.

    Meanwhile, a recent debate about imposing immigration quotas on the EU was at least partly influenced by the steady influx of rich foreigners who have driven up house prices in places like Zurich and Geneva to a point where some Swiss can no longer afford to live there.

    At the same time, increasingly forceful international efforts to crack down on tax evasion have made some of Switzerland's banks think twice before welcoming foreign wealth.

    These developments show that the Swiss relationship with the super-rich is changing, but they do not yet suggest a fundamental rupture, says Fabrizio Gilardi, professor of policy analysis at the University of Zurich. Even after the changes to the special tax regimes and the adoption of the curbs on executive pay, he argues, Switzerland will still be a more welcoming destination for rich foreigners than many other countries.

    And the Swiss relationship with wealth has always been marked by a certain ambivalence, Mr Gilardi adds. For all the country's efforts to attract rich foreigners, Swiss culture abhors conspicuous displays of affluence. "What is prized instead is modesty," he says.

    Andreas Ladner, professor of politics at the Swiss Graduate School of Public Administration in Lausanne, also plays down the suggestion that recent developments mark a watershed in Switzerland's relationship with the ultra-wealthy.

    "One referendum doesn't make a summer," he says, before adding: "The Minder initiative wasn't really about high levels of pay: it didn't cap salaries, for example. Rather it was about giving shareholders a say. And giving the people a chance to express themselves is a fundamental Swiss value."

    It is certainly true that the referendum focused as much on the mismatch between pay and performance as on high pay itself.

    Mr Minder's decision to launch his initiative in the first place was prompted by the combination of corporate failings and high executive pay surrounding the grounding of Swissair, the Swiss national airline, in 2001. A similar mixture at the Swiss banking giant UBS has also been a potent rallying cry.

    Yet despite such caveats, there are signs that the strain on the Swiss-rich relationship is likely to intensify this year.

    Switzerland's young socialists are leading the charge for a plan to limit the pay of top executives to 12 times that of the lowest earner in their company. Meanwhile, other voices are pushing for a vote on increasing the rate of inheritance tax. Mr Minder's success is only likely to embolden proponents of these causes.

    Such battles, Prof Ladner points out, have yet to be decided one way or another. But the fact that they are looming is a reminder that – even if Switzerland is unlikely to divorce itself from the super-rich – the honeymoon was over a long time ago.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,677

    Default

    swiss of europe and swiss of asia facing same prob.
    There is no good or bad location. There is only good or bad price.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,318

    Default

    http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/03/07...-pay-more-tax/

    Sylvia is right about making the rich pay more tax

    March 7th, 2013


    What Sylvia Lim said in parliament about making the rich pay progressively more taxes makes sense. According to Cambridge Professor HA-JOON CHANG:

    “They achieve this because they live in economies that have better technologies, better organized firms, better institutions and better physical infrastructure – all things that are in large part products of collective actions taken over generations.”

    According to Prof Chang, none other than Warren Buffet himself personified this truth.


    The following quote is from Chang’s book “23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism”:

    “Finally, a word of warning to the rich of the rich countries, lest they become smug, hearing that their own poor are paid well only because of immigration control and their own high productivity.

    Even in sectors where rich country individuals are genuinely more productive than their counterparts in poor countries, their productivity is in great part due to the system, rather than the individuals themselves. It is not simply, or even mainly, because they are cleverer and better educated that some people in rich countries are hundreds of times more productive than their counterparts in poor countries. They achieve this because they live in economies that have better technologies, better organized firms, better institutions and better physical infrastructure – all things that are in large part products of collective actions taken over generations.

    Warren Buffet, the famous financier, put this point beautifully, when he said in a television interview in 1995: ‘I personally think that society is responsible for a very significant percentage of what I’ve earned. If you stick me down in the middle of Bangladesh or Peru or someplace, you’ll find out how much this talent is going to produce in the wrong kind of soil. I will be struggling thirty years later. I work in a market system that happens to reward what I do very well – disproportionately well.’

    So we are actually back to where we started. What an individual is paid is not fully a reflection of her worth. Most people, in poor and rich countries, get paid what they do only because there is immigration control. Even those citizens of rich countries who cannot be easily replaced by immigrants, and thus may be said to be really being paid their worth (although they may not, are as productive as they are only because of the socioeconomic system they are operating in. It is not simply because of their individual brilliance and hard work that they are as productive as they are.

    The widely accepted assertion that, only if you let markets be, will everyone be paid correctly and thus fairly, according to his worth, is a myth. Only when we part with this myth and grasp the political nature of the market and the collective nature of individual productivity will we be able to build a more just society in which historical legacies and collective actions, and not just individual talents and efforts, are properly taken into account in deciding how to reward people. ”

    - 23 Things They Don’t Tell You about Capitalism
    HA-JOON CHANG



    Thetwophilo

    * The writer blogs at http://thetwophilo.wordpress.com

  12. #12
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,318

    Default

    http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest%...10-407545.html

    Reducing inequality

    By Fiona Chan
    The Straits Times
    Monday, Mar 11, 2013


    SINGAPORE - Much of the recent discussion over building a more inclusive society in Singapore has focused on narrowing the income gap, and for good reason.

    The chasm between top and bottom earners is not only widening, but also nearing its worst levels in more than a decade.

    In the 2012 household incomes survey released last month, there were no fewer than seven calculations of the Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality. They reflected different computation methods and components, such as Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions and government transfers and taxes.

    All seven calculations showed that Singapore's Gini coefficient was higher last year than in 2011. Depending on the metric, each was also at its highest or second-highest level since 2000, the earliest date given in the survey.

    On the heels of this, the Government took bolder steps in last month's Budget to close the income gap from both ends. It gave more handouts and rebates to the needy and raised or imposed new taxes on luxury houses and cars.

    Some MPs have called for an even greater rebalancing of wealth, with higher taxes at the top end. There is some merit to this argument, especially since Singapore's income distribution has become considerably more top-heavy in the last decade.

    Since 2000, the number of households earning $13,000 or more a month has quadrupled, from about 64,000 in 2000 to about 250,000 last year, according to the household incomes survey. Their share of the population has also tripled. Only one in 14 households made such big bucks in 2000, but this grew to one in five households last year.

    At the same time, top earners are also raking in more. The top one-tenth of households now earn above $30,000 a month on average, up from $16,000 in 2000 - a near doubling of incomes.

    But the rise in incomes gets smaller and smaller as one goes down the economic ladder, until it plummets right at the bottom.

    For most households, their wages grew by between 60 per cent and 73 per cent over the last 12 years, or 5 per cent to 6 per cent a year on average.

    But the lowest one-tenth of households have seen a measly 19 per cent rise in incomes since 2000 - just 1.6 per cent a year on average.

    Inflation has averaged 2.1 per cent a year in this time.

    To its credit, the Government has tried to ameliorate the widening disparity. The top 10 per cent of households earned nine times the takings of the bottom 10 per cent of households last year, but only 7.87 times after including government transfers and taxes.

    Still, that was up from 7.54 times in 2011, and higher than the 7.68 times in 2000.

    This is ample ammunition for those who propose a more progressive tax system. However, it must also be balanced against the risk of Singapore losing its competitiveness against a rival like Hong Kong, whose top taxes are already lower than Singapore's.

    But economic equality is about more than just closing the income gap for workers. It also means reducing the growing sense of financial division between the richest and the rest, both through more aid for non-workers and through policies that refrain from exacerbating existing wealth disparities.

    The clearest picture of this is in transport. At one end of the spectrum, elevated inflation has made public transport costs an increasingly unaffordabledaily expense for poorer citizens, who expressed disappointment at having no new transport subsidies in the Budget.

    These include households for whom greater wage equality may not come in time: Those with no income at all, such as retirees, and older low-wage workers, whose remaining salary rises may well be outpaced by inflation.

    Nearly a tenth of households had no working person last year, a rise of 35 per cent from 2000, the household survey showed. Retiree households, in particular, have doubled in the last 12 years. There were 69,100 of them last year - 6 per cent of all households.

    Most retirees are likely to be living off fixed savings, which will be more quickly eroded now that Singapore is moving into an era of higher-than-usual inflation.

    Even for senior citizens who are still working, the prospects of meaningfully higher retirement savings are slim for many. Of the lowest one-fifth of income earners, almost half are citizens aged 55 and above, Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam noted in his Budget speech.

    For workers aged 60 and above, a quarter of them, or about 46,000, toil as cleaners or labourers - the lowest-paying jobs, according to June 2011 data from the Manpower Ministry.

    The median monthly basic wage for these jobs was just $900 in 2011, the latest figures available. Office cleaners, the bulk of this category, earned a median monthly basic wage of only $760.

    Among other aid for older workers, Mr Tharman has restored their CPF contributions in the latest Budget. But the numbers are not particularly cheering.

    A 45-year-old earning $800 a month will save $15,000 more in his CPF by age 65, Mr Tharman said. Assuming the worker spends $650 a month in his retirement, these 20 years of extra CPF savings buy only two more years of monthly expenses before taking into account any state transfers.

    At the other end of the income spectrum, transport is also driving a deeper wedge into the rich-poor divide - or, rather, the rich-middle divide. The recent cap on car loans means that even a middle-class income may no longer be enough to buy a car.

    A basic new Japanese or Korean car will cost about $120,000 or $1,310 a month, based on a 40 per cent down payment, 1.88 per cent interest rate and five-year loan.

    The rule of thumb is: A household's debts - including car and house loans - should not exceed 35 per cent of its monthly income.

    Assuming the car loan repayments make up 10 to 15 per cent of household income, that puts this car out of easy reach for some 60 per cent of households, even before counting the cash down payment and running costs of the car.

    Meanwhile, judging from the reactions of wealthy individuals, the loan limits and higher car taxes are but minor obstacles to their habit of owning multiple cars.

    Given high car prices, some loan limits may be in order to ensure financial prudence. But a less inequitable policy could have been to impose lower loan caps for a first car and more prohibitive taxes or loan limits for subsequent car purchases.

    As Singaporeans grapple with the cost of living and the meaning of home, a movement towards greater equality will be crucial in both discussions. Policymakers would do well to remember that one type of equity begets another: A greater sense of inclusiveness will make Singaporeans feel more invested in this country.

    [email protected]

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    8,926

    Default

    adjusted for inflation for US



    Ride at your own risk !!!

  14. #14
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,318

    Default

    http://sbr.com.sg/financial-services...p-billionaires

    Singapore Business Review
    FINANCIAL SERVICES | Krisana Gallezo, Singapore
    Published: 12 Mar 2013

    Singapore's 11 top billionaires


    Guess who's Singapore's richest with US$6bn net worth.

    According to data obtained from Hurun's Global Rich list, brothers Robert and Philip NG of the Far East Group top the list.

    They are followed by Wee Cho Yaw, the current Chairman of the United Overseas Bank (UOB); Sukanto Tanoto, an Indonesian magnate who relocated to Singapore in the 1990s and Richard Chandler, a New Zealand born entrepreneur who is based in Singapore.

    Altogether, the 11 Singapore-based billionaires have total wealth of $28.7 billion.

    By country, the US was home to 409 billionaires, comfortably ahead of the 317 from China. Between the US and China, they now have half of all billionaires on the planet.

    Moscow is the billionaire capital of the world, home to 76 billionaires, edging out New York which has 70. London came in at fifth place behind HK and Beijing. Five of the Top Ten cities for billionaires are in Greater China.


  15. #15
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,318

    Default

    http://www.tremeritus.com/2013/03/11...high-benefits/

    Lower & middle-income: low taxes, high benefits?

    March 11th, 2013


    I refer to the article “Progressivity ‘not for its own sake’” (Straits Times, Mar 8).

    Tax system helps Singaporeans have better lives?

    It states that “The true test of Singapore’s tax system is not how progressive it looks, but how it actually helps Singaporeans have better lives”.

    “Taxes” that are Uniquely Singapore?

    I think the problem with the debate as to whether lower and middle-income Singaporeans pay relatively less taxes and get more benefits in return, may be that Singapore may arguably be unique in some of the ways in which we define taxes, or rather what are not taxes, and what constitutes benefits, compared to other countries.

    CPF tax?

    For example, paying just 2.5 per cent interest on the CPF Ordinary Account, may be considered as the mother of all taxes, since historically, some of our CPF funds may have contributed to Temasek’s 17 per cent per annum returns in the last 33 years, and the Government Investment Government’s (GIC) about six per cent per annum returns in US$ over the last 20 years or so.

    Are there any other countries in the world that pay such a low interest on the people’s pension funds?

    HDB tax?

    Which other countries in the world makes so much money on its public housing by linking ever rising prices to market prices, instead of the costs of building them?

    Is this not like another “indirect’ tax on Singaporeans?

    Healthcare tax?

    With public healthcare spending at about 1.6 per cent of GDP in the previous fiscal year, which is one of the lowest in the world, isn’t the about 60 plus per cent of private healthcare spending against the 30 plus per cent of public healthcare spending, in an environment of relentless rising healthcare costs, like another ‘indirect” tax?

    Other advanced countries may appear to have higher taxes, but the “indirect” taxes described above, would be absent or have minimal impact on the cash-flows of its citizens.

    Benefits that are Uniquely Singapore?

    Much of what we count as benefits may not be so, in other countries.

    Healthcare subsidies?

    For example, how can our up to 80 per cent healthcare subsidies be a benefit, when the lower-income end up paying our so called “subsidised” healthcare fees that are even higher than Hong Kong and Malaysia’s “unsubsidised” public healthcare fees?

    HDB subsidies?

    How can HDB housing grants be a benefit, when the prices of HDB flats invariably rise more than the increase in the grants over the years?

    Property tax progressivity?

    As to “While the Budget announced last month increased the progressivity of the tax system by raising taxes on the wealthy on property”, is it not somewhat contradictory in progressivity, to have raised the property tax of 3-room HDB flats arguably, by as much as 222 per cent. (“HDB rentals up 10%, but property tax up 118%?“, Nov 27)

    CPF Medisave top-ups are benefits?

    How can CPF Medisave top-ups be counted as a benefit, when most of it may be consumed by rising healthcare costs? In other countries, healthcare affordability may be maintained such that there may be no need for “top-ups”.

    Better lives = world’s unhappiest people?

    Perhaps a good indicator of “The true test of Singapore’s tax system is not how progressive it looks, but how it actually helps Singaporeans have better lives”, is the article “Singaporeans unhappiest people in the world: poll” (xinmsn News, Dec 20), which said that “So apparently we’re not just “emotionless”, we’re the world’s unhappiest lot as well”.

    Raising incomes is best strategy?

    With regard to the article “Best aid strategy for middle-income is rising incomes: DPM” (Straits Times, Mar 8), this consistent rhetoric over the years don’t seem to match the statistics that the estimated real median wage growth per annum in the 1990s was about 16 times more than the last 12 years or so. (“Real wage growth p.a. in 1990s was 16 times more than last 12 years?“, Mar 5)

    Reduce charges is “benefits”?

    As to “would save $730 from tax rebates and $530 through special transfers and other changes, such as a reduction in the maid levy”, since the maid levy is like a tax, how can lowering it for certain families be counted as a benefit? Like this, we can keep increasing all kinds of charges and taxes, and then when we reduce them – count them as benefits – benefits may then appear to be rising all the time!


    Leong Sze Hian

    Leong Sze Hian is the Past President of the Society of Financial Service Professionals, an alumnus of Harvard University, Wharton Fellow, SEACeM Fellow and an author of 4 books. He is frequently quoted in the media. He has also been invited to speak more than 100 times in 25 countries on 5 continents. He has served as Honorary Consul of Jamaica, Chairman of the Institute of Administrative Management, and founding advisor to the Financial Planning Associations of Brunei and Indonesia. He has 3 Masters, 2 Bachelors degrees and 13 professional qualifications. He blogs at http://www.leongszehian.com.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    8,926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RCT
    But median income per household individual only 2k plus.. How come per household is 7k plus? Normally one household is 2 working adult so is 2 x 2k plus.. How to reach 7k plus?
    the magic is because that 7.5k figure includes employer CPF (for those earning 5k and below, it is 16% more if include employer CPF), again some families may have 3 persons employed
    Ride at your own risk !!!

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RCT
    But median income per household individual only 2k plus.. How come per household is 7k plus? Normally one household is 2 working adult so is 2 x 2k plus.. How to reach 7k plus?
    Using replacement level at ~1.1 means that each household average 3 people, so 2k plus x 3 = 7k plus?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    8,926

    Default

    it is in my opinion that only top 20% of cohorts can afford a retirement comfortably

    here are some figures based on age group vs salary range in SG as of June 2012:

    Age group 25-29
    4k-5k per month top 23%
    5k-6k per month top 11%

    Age group 30-34
    6k-7k per month top 20%
    7-8k per month top 13.5%

    Age group 35-39
    7-8k per month top 21.6%
    8-9k per month top 16%

    Age group 40-44
    8-9k per month top 20%
    9k-10k per month top 16%
    Ride at your own risk !!!

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    2,141

    Default

    If you expand to the whole population on Earth, I think only 1% can retire "comfortably" which is much lower than Singapore 20%...

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    8,926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Allthepies
    If you expand to the whole population on Earth, I think only 1% can retire "comfortably" which is much lower than Singapore 20%...
    that is if the top 20% in SG save and invest smartly ... if buy at the peak like 1997 you will be stuck for whole life
    Ride at your own risk !!!

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    705

    Default

    May I ask where did you get the breakdown? Which source of data provides this by age groups? thanks ..

    Quote Originally Posted by phantom_opera
    it is in my opinion that only top 20% of cohorts can afford a retirement comfortably

    here are some figures based on age group vs salary range in SG as of June 2012:

    Age group 25-29
    4k-5k per month top 23%
    5k-6k per month top 11%

    Age group 30-34
    6k-7k per month top 20%
    7-8k per month top 13.5%

    Age group 35-39
    7-8k per month top 21.6%
    8-9k per month top 16%

    Age group 40-44
    8-9k per month top 20%
    9k-10k per month top 16%

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    8,926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cheerful
    May I ask where did you get the breakdown? Which source of data provides this by age groups? thanks ..
    it is all in MOM report, check the 2012 labor report T26
    Ride at your own risk !!!

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    8,926

    Default

    For age group 35-39, the top 6% earns more than 12k per month

    For age group 40-44, the top 9.5% earns more than 12k per month

    For age group 45-49, the top 8.1% earns more than 12k per month

    For age group 50-54, the top 7.5% earns more than 12k per month

    For age group 55-59, the top 5.1% earns more than 12k per month

    Numbers are gross salary (including bonus) excluding employer CPF
    Ride at your own risk !!!

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    705

    Default

    Thanks! ok will search for this T26 report

    Quote Originally Posted by phantom_opera
    For age group 35-39, the top 6% earns more than 12k per month

    For age group 40-44, the top 9.5% earns more than 12k per month

    For age group 45-49, the top 8.1% earns more than 12k per month

    For age group 50-54, the top 7.5% earns more than 12k per month

    For age group 55-59, the top 5.1% earns more than 12k per month

    Numbers are gross salary (including bonus) excluding employer CPF

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    -: 17-01-22, 20:11
  2. Replies: 0
    -: 04-08-21, 18:22
  3. Replies: 0
    -: 15-07-21, 12:35
  4. Singapore lessons for an unequal America
    By phantom_opera in forum Coffeeshop Talk
    Replies: 2
    -: 21-03-13, 10:27
  5. Wealth Over the Edge: Singapore
    By eng81157 in forum Coffeeshop Talk
    Replies: 18
    -: 12-03-13, 14:16

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •