24-04-2025, 02:00 PM
https://youtu.be/LDltV1M9J0s?si=ahV7gU6TVu74ZhjF
Okay, let's break down some statements in the speech that could be considered "bullshit," meaning they are misleading, oversimplified, or omit important context:
The Claim: Support given "this year" (context suggests 2020) more than offsets any GST increase. (0:19-0:24)
Why it's Bullshit: This is misleading because the major support mentioned for "this year" was likely related to the extraordinary Covid-19 pandemic relief measures. These were temporary and designed for a crisis. The GST hike (planned for 2023/2024) is a permanent structural change to government revenue. Conflating temporary crisis aid with the specific, permanent offset package (the Assurance Package) designed for the GST hike makes the compensation seem larger and more immediate than the dedicated GST offset package actually was at that specific moment. It leverages unrelated crisis spending to justify a future tax hike.
The Claim: A large number of households "will not feel the effect of GST" for five years because the offsets cover more than they pay. (0:36-0:45)
Why it's Bullshit: This is an oversimplification.
Psychological Impact: People will see higher prices on goods and services. Even if they get money back later, the feeling of paying more at the counter is real.
Temporary vs. Permanent: The offset is explicitly temporary (5-10 years), while the tax hike is permanent. Saying people "won't feel the effect" ignores the reality that the offsets will eventually run out, and the higher tax rate will remain. It downplays the long-term financial impact.
The Claim: GST is "primarily paid by the top income earners," with the top 20% paying "most of it." (1:02-1:08)
Why it's Bullshit: This is technically true in absolute dollar amounts (rich people spend more money overall, so they pay more total GST dollars). However, it's misleading because it ignores the regressive nature of GST. As a percentage of income, lower-income households spend a much larger portion of their earnings on basic necessities subject to GST. Therefore, the burden of GST relative to income is higher on the poor. Focusing only on absolute dollar contribution by the rich conveniently ignores this key criticism of consumption taxes.
The Claim: The $9 GST from a $100 restaurant meal is taken and "redistributed" to help the person paying $10 for a hawker meal (who pays 90 cents GST). (1:10-1:31)
Why it's Bullshit: This is a gross oversimplification of how government finances work.
No Direct Link: Tax revenue goes into a consolidated fund. There isn't a direct pipe channeling the GST from one specific restaurant diner to subsidize one specific hawker diner. The money funds all government spending, including social programs, defence, infrastructure, etc.
Hawker GST: Many hawker stalls are below the revenue threshold and don't actually charge GST, making the 90 cents example potentially inaccurate in many real-world cases.
Purpose: It creates a simplistic, emotionally appealing "Robin Hood" narrative that doesn't reflect the complexity of fiscal policy.
The Claim: The GST system itself takes from the top and redistributes. (1:31-1:35)
Why it's Bullshit: The GST collection mechanism itself is regressive (as explained in point 3). It's the overall fiscal system – including progressive income taxes and government spending/transfer programs (like the GST offset package) – that performs redistribution. Attributing the redistribution directly to the GST tax itself is inaccurate; the tax collection works in the opposite direction relative to income percentage. The offsets are the redistributive part, not the tax collection itself.
The Implication: The opposition isn't being clear or accurate ("partially accurate") about these points, unlike the speaker. (1:36-1:51)
Why it's Bullshit: This is a political framing tactic. It dismisses potential valid criticisms or alternative proposals from the opposition (like questioning the necessity of the hike or suggesting alternative revenue streams) by vaguely labelling them as incomplete or inaccurate, without engaging with their specific arguments. It positions the government's narrative as the sole source of truth.
In essence, the speech uses selective data, oversimplified analogies, and conflation of different issues (crisis aid vs. permanent offsets) to present the GST hike and its mitigation measures in the most favourable light, while downplaying or ignoring common criticisms and long-term impacts.
Okay, let's break down some statements in the speech that could be considered "bullshit," meaning they are misleading, oversimplified, or omit important context:
The Claim: Support given "this year" (context suggests 2020) more than offsets any GST increase. (0:19-0:24)
Why it's Bullshit: This is misleading because the major support mentioned for "this year" was likely related to the extraordinary Covid-19 pandemic relief measures. These were temporary and designed for a crisis. The GST hike (planned for 2023/2024) is a permanent structural change to government revenue. Conflating temporary crisis aid with the specific, permanent offset package (the Assurance Package) designed for the GST hike makes the compensation seem larger and more immediate than the dedicated GST offset package actually was at that specific moment. It leverages unrelated crisis spending to justify a future tax hike.
The Claim: A large number of households "will not feel the effect of GST" for five years because the offsets cover more than they pay. (0:36-0:45)
Why it's Bullshit: This is an oversimplification.
Psychological Impact: People will see higher prices on goods and services. Even if they get money back later, the feeling of paying more at the counter is real.
Temporary vs. Permanent: The offset is explicitly temporary (5-10 years), while the tax hike is permanent. Saying people "won't feel the effect" ignores the reality that the offsets will eventually run out, and the higher tax rate will remain. It downplays the long-term financial impact.
The Claim: GST is "primarily paid by the top income earners," with the top 20% paying "most of it." (1:02-1:08)
Why it's Bullshit: This is technically true in absolute dollar amounts (rich people spend more money overall, so they pay more total GST dollars). However, it's misleading because it ignores the regressive nature of GST. As a percentage of income, lower-income households spend a much larger portion of their earnings on basic necessities subject to GST. Therefore, the burden of GST relative to income is higher on the poor. Focusing only on absolute dollar contribution by the rich conveniently ignores this key criticism of consumption taxes.
The Claim: The $9 GST from a $100 restaurant meal is taken and "redistributed" to help the person paying $10 for a hawker meal (who pays 90 cents GST). (1:10-1:31)
Why it's Bullshit: This is a gross oversimplification of how government finances work.
No Direct Link: Tax revenue goes into a consolidated fund. There isn't a direct pipe channeling the GST from one specific restaurant diner to subsidize one specific hawker diner. The money funds all government spending, including social programs, defence, infrastructure, etc.
Hawker GST: Many hawker stalls are below the revenue threshold and don't actually charge GST, making the 90 cents example potentially inaccurate in many real-world cases.
Purpose: It creates a simplistic, emotionally appealing "Robin Hood" narrative that doesn't reflect the complexity of fiscal policy.
The Claim: The GST system itself takes from the top and redistributes. (1:31-1:35)
Why it's Bullshit: The GST collection mechanism itself is regressive (as explained in point 3). It's the overall fiscal system – including progressive income taxes and government spending/transfer programs (like the GST offset package) – that performs redistribution. Attributing the redistribution directly to the GST tax itself is inaccurate; the tax collection works in the opposite direction relative to income percentage. The offsets are the redistributive part, not the tax collection itself.
The Implication: The opposition isn't being clear or accurate ("partially accurate") about these points, unlike the speaker. (1:36-1:51)
Why it's Bullshit: This is a political framing tactic. It dismisses potential valid criticisms or alternative proposals from the opposition (like questioning the necessity of the hike or suggesting alternative revenue streams) by vaguely labelling them as incomplete or inaccurate, without engaging with their specific arguments. It positions the government's narrative as the sole source of truth.
In essence, the speech uses selective data, oversimplified analogies, and conflation of different issues (crisis aid vs. permanent offsets) to present the GST hike and its mitigation measures in the most favourable light, while downplaying or ignoring common criticisms and long-term impacts.
![[Image: IMG-3020.jpg]](https://i.ibb.co/jvn1HxKc/IMG-3020.jpg)
![[Image: IMG-20250424-184134-049.jpg]](https://i.ibb.co/7xH5NYQP/IMG-20250424-184134-049.jpg)
![[Image: IMG-20250424-184133-809.jpg]](https://i.ibb.co/tTFffp4V/IMG-20250424-184133-809.jpg)
![[Image: IMG-20250424-184133-936.jpg]](https://i.ibb.co/B2NzQGjN/IMG-20250424-184133-936.jpg)
![[Image: IMG-20250424-184133-572.jpg]](https://i.ibb.co/B2h7LCJD/IMG-20250424-184133-572.jpg)
![[Image: IMG-20250424-183531-945.jpg]](https://i.ibb.co/QFzbrRwr/IMG-20250424-183531-945.jpg)