30-04-2025, 10:57 AM
Bullshit in GE2025: GST hike necessary to address rising costs but Govt will take care of you, says Shanmugam | The Straits Times
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/p...-shanmugam
The article reports on remarks by Singapore's Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam regarding the upcoming GST hike and government assistance measures. Below are potential points of contention (or "bullshit," depending on perspective) and why critics might challenge them:
### **1. "GST Hike is Necessary to Address Rising Costs"**
- **Why it’s questionable**:
- **Regressive Taxation**: GST disproportionately affects lower-income groups, as they spend a higher percentage of their income on essentials. The government claims offset measures help, but critics argue a wealth or capital gains tax would be fairer.
- **Alternative Revenue Sources**: Singapore has vast reserves (GIC, Temasek) and could explore taxing high net-worth individuals or corporate profits more aggressively instead of raising consumption taxes.
- **Inflationary Pressure**: Increasing GST could further drive up prices, worsening cost-of-living pressures despite "offset packages."
### **2. "Government Will Take Care of You"**
- **Why it’s questionable**:
- **Temporary Relief vs. Structural Change**: Vouchers and cash handouts (e.g., Assurance Package) are short-term fixes, not long-term solutions to inequality or wage stagnation.
- **Conditional Assistance**: Many schemes are means-tested or require jumping through bureaucratic hoops, leaving some struggling households without adequate support.
- **Political Timing**: Critics argue such assurances are often rolled out near elections (GE2025) to soften backlash over unpopular policies.
### **3. "Strong Fiscal Position, But Still Need GST Hike"**
- **Why it’s questionable**:
- **Record Budget Surpluses**: Singapore has run large surpluses in recent years (e.g., $10.6B in FY2022). Critics ask why further taxation is needed instead of reallocating existing funds.
- **Lack of Transparency in Reserves**: The government justifies GST hikes by citing future spending needs (healthcare, aging population), but the exact state of reserves is opaque, leading to skepticism.
### **4. "We Have No Choice Due to Aging Population"**
- **Why it’s questionable**:
- **Alternative Funding Models**: Countries like Norway use sovereign wealth funds (from oil revenues) to support social spending. Singapore’s reserves could theoretically fund welfare without hiking GST.
- **Prioritization of Spending**: Critics argue that massive expenditures on defense (e.g., F-35 jets) or infrastructure (e.g., mega-projects like Tuas Port) could be rebalanced to favor social welfare.
### **5. "Other Countries Also Raise GST/VAT"**
- **Why it’s questionable**:
- **Weak Comparison**: Many high-tax countries (e.g., in Scandinavia) provide extensive welfare (free healthcare, education), whereas Singapore’s social safety net is leaner despite high GDP.
### **𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧**
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐞 "𝐛𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐭" 𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐒𝐓 𝐡𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐚𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐚𝐯𝐨𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 (𝐭𝐚𝐱𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐡, 𝐭𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐠𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐲) 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐢𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 ("𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐮𝐬, 𝐰𝐞’𝐥𝐥 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐩 𝐲𝐨𝐮") 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐚𝐝𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐚
𝐱𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐝𝐬.
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/p...-shanmugam
The article reports on remarks by Singapore's Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam regarding the upcoming GST hike and government assistance measures. Below are potential points of contention (or "bullshit," depending on perspective) and why critics might challenge them:
### **1. "GST Hike is Necessary to Address Rising Costs"**
- **Why it’s questionable**:
- **Regressive Taxation**: GST disproportionately affects lower-income groups, as they spend a higher percentage of their income on essentials. The government claims offset measures help, but critics argue a wealth or capital gains tax would be fairer.
- **Alternative Revenue Sources**: Singapore has vast reserves (GIC, Temasek) and could explore taxing high net-worth individuals or corporate profits more aggressively instead of raising consumption taxes.
- **Inflationary Pressure**: Increasing GST could further drive up prices, worsening cost-of-living pressures despite "offset packages."
### **2. "Government Will Take Care of You"**
- **Why it’s questionable**:
- **Temporary Relief vs. Structural Change**: Vouchers and cash handouts (e.g., Assurance Package) are short-term fixes, not long-term solutions to inequality or wage stagnation.
- **Conditional Assistance**: Many schemes are means-tested or require jumping through bureaucratic hoops, leaving some struggling households without adequate support.
- **Political Timing**: Critics argue such assurances are often rolled out near elections (GE2025) to soften backlash over unpopular policies.
### **3. "Strong Fiscal Position, But Still Need GST Hike"**
- **Why it’s questionable**:
- **Record Budget Surpluses**: Singapore has run large surpluses in recent years (e.g., $10.6B in FY2022). Critics ask why further taxation is needed instead of reallocating existing funds.
- **Lack of Transparency in Reserves**: The government justifies GST hikes by citing future spending needs (healthcare, aging population), but the exact state of reserves is opaque, leading to skepticism.
### **4. "We Have No Choice Due to Aging Population"**
- **Why it’s questionable**:
- **Alternative Funding Models**: Countries like Norway use sovereign wealth funds (from oil revenues) to support social spending. Singapore’s reserves could theoretically fund welfare without hiking GST.
- **Prioritization of Spending**: Critics argue that massive expenditures on defense (e.g., F-35 jets) or infrastructure (e.g., mega-projects like Tuas Port) could be rebalanced to favor social welfare.
### **5. "Other Countries Also Raise GST/VAT"**
- **Why it’s questionable**:
- **Weak Comparison**: Many high-tax countries (e.g., in Scandinavia) provide extensive welfare (free healthcare, education), whereas Singapore’s social safety net is leaner despite high GDP.
### **𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧**
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐞 "𝐛𝐮𝐥𝐥𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐭" 𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐢𝐧 𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐆𝐒𝐓 𝐡𝐢𝐤𝐞 𝐚𝐬 𝐮𝐧𝐚𝐯𝐨𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬 (𝐭𝐚𝐱𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐡, 𝐭𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐬 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐠𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐲) 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐜𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐩𝐢𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐦𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐚𝐫𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬 ("𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐮𝐬, 𝐰𝐞’𝐥𝐥 𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐩 𝐲𝐨𝐮") 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐚𝐝𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐫𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐚
𝐱𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐝𝐬.