The Singapore Commentator

Well, so called ‘welfare-burdened’ Nordic countries came out tops in a number of business surveys last year. And (what an insult) they all ranked above Singapore. The World Economic Forum placed Finland in the top spot. Since we are so obsessed with competitiveness, why isn’t emulating welfare economies worth the price to pay?

Actually, in our case, it’s easy to devise a system in which at least 95% of Singaporeans will be made happier.

Since the top 5% pays two-thirds of income taxes (that’s how much income discrepancy has widened over the years), it’s probably sufficient to just raise their income taxes. Lately, we seem to love trumpeting how charitable we are. Now charity starts at home shouldn’t it?

I suspect, however, the ministers and their CEO pals won’t be too happy with this suggestion. There’s another way. PM challenged Low Thia Kiang to be ‘transparent’ about the price tag. Ok, lets talk transparency. What is the amount of government reserves? Rumour has it that it is in the many hundreds of billions. Now 3% on $300 billion would generate $9bn a year.

What is the nation’s savings if not for old age? A few hundred million put here and there by the PM in Comcare or medifund falls far short of what we are capable of doing. IMHO, Time to think about social security (re: comment in entrepreneurs and economic cycle).

 

"Since the top 5% pays two-thirds of income taxes (that’s how much income discrepancy has widened over the years), it’s probably sufficient to just raise their income taxes. Lately, we seem to love trumpeting how charitable we are. Now charity starts at home shouldn’t it?"

There may be good arguments for more income redistribution (which is what is being proposed here) in Singapore, but this is not one of them.

The proposal is tax the richer, transfer to the less rich. But why is it "charity"? I didn't know that being "charitably" with someone else's money is consider charity?

By the way, Sg-commentor--good blog. I've 'rolled it on my own blog (http://singaporeangle.blogspot.com/)

 

"The proposal is tax the richer, transfer to the less rich. But why is it "charity"? I didn't know that being "charitably" with someone else's money is consider charity?"

Ministers in this country like to use the term ‘handouts’ when it comes to helping the less fortunate in society. The implication is that the recipient should have been able to do better for himself.

The effect is that, in many instances, help is not given out at all. And when it is, it is only given reluctantly, with the receiver subject to severe interrogation and scrutiny. An MP once put it this way (and I paraphrase), ‘It's quite a process to go through ... a person with dignity won't do it unless he's in genuine trouble.'

Why we need to subject people in genuine trouble with such indignity I suppose is because we believe they shouldn’t be receiving someone else’s money. This is a self-reliant society, founded on the principles of meritocracy.

But behind the veneer of meritocracy is a new elite class with no room for others. They have done well and now have a tool with which to justify their bonuses and seal the gates of prosperity for themselves.

Equality of opportunity was supposed to have leveled the playing field. But lets face it; great disparities in parents’ incomes inevitably give some children better opportunities than others. Would Wee Cho Yaw wish for his son to be a plumber?

True equality of opportunity can only be possible with a more egalitarian society. Yes, that is only my opinion. The objective, however, is not to achieve absolute equality, but to remove the injustice of excessive inequality.

According to Towers & Perrin, Singapore CEOs are the highest paid in Asia and the 4th highest paid in the world. In what was probably among the worst years in Singapore economic history, 2001 to 2003, their salaries jumped some 50%. On average, they are paid $1.65m. At the same time, a quarter of Singaporean households earn less then $2k a month (yes, that’s household, not individual income), with little change in their earnings since the Asian crisis.

I wouldn’t consider those in the top 5% of the income bracket merely ‘richer’, nor would I judge those at the bottom 25% ‘less rich’. And I’m afraid the problem why charity in this country is so hard to come by is that those who have think they deserve all they get.