Budget hits the "poorest" hardest!!

[snaw]

Congrats. Your most relevant contribution to the debate thus far.
Now, on Planet snaw, do you seriously expect people to believe that all of the poor are just "unfortunate downtrodden helpless victims", or can you accept that with the barmy system we have had foisted upon us, largely by people with the same "Champagne Socialist" views that you seem to hold, is in fact promoting laziness in a significant proportion?
Of course, were you to be over here both witnessing things at first hand and paying for the privilege, rather than fussing over this from the balcony of Raffles' Hotel, you may hold a different view.
And one last thing, if you are going to accuse people of misquoting, at least have the sense not to blatantly do so yourself. That way you might avoid the accusations of "hypocrite", even if the ones of "imbecile" will still stick like glue.

unfortunate downtrodden helpless victims - didn't say that.

Champagne Socialist views that you seem to hold - wrong, again.

Of course, were you to be over here both witnessing things at first hand and paying for the privilege - until fairly recently I was, and held the same view. Facts were never you're strong point.

accuse people of misquoting - oh not accusation, i's a fact. Or read back through the thread and show me where I've stated any of the things you seem to be reading me saying.

I misquoted you, where?

im·be·cile (mb-sl, -sl)
n.
1. A stupid or silly person; a dolt.
2. A person whose mental acumen is well below par.
3. A person of moderate to severe mental retardation having a mental age of from three to seven years and generally being capable of some degree of communication and performance of simple tasks under supervision. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.

You know SB, that word is a very close fit for how I think I, and I'll can take a stab at guessing most of the board also, perceive you if I recall the majority of the threads you're involved in.

[shaunbhoy]

'Singapore is not a tax haven,' assured Lim Hwee Hua, Senior Minister of State for Finance and Transport. Singapore has decided to endorse the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Standard for the effective exchange of information. The decision further reinforces Singapore as a trusted center for finance and a responsible jurisdiction, with a reputation for strong rule of law. Singapore, however, does offer a favorable tax structure to encourage continual foreign investment. For example, Singapore’s corporate tax rate is now at 17% with several tax exemptions for new startup companies, and there is no capital gain tax in Singapore.

The Low Tax Option
Foreign investors can benefit from low or no tax rate on their offshore and international businesses as long as these businesses are structured and administered to benefit from the maximum tax breaks allowed in Singapore and other countries that have attractive low tax systems.

Oh wait. snaw is correct. "Singapore is NOT a tax haven"....honest guv!! It just has a hugely beneficial tax system. Oh well.....that is a horse of a completely different colour.
I really don't know why you bothered to leave snaw, there is a prime position beckoning you back here as a NL spin doctor.
What with your propensity for bending the truth, you'd be a stick-on for an advisory position. Then you could get PAID for being a hypocrite instead of doing it for free in your spare time.

[snaw]

Oh wait. snaw is correct. "Singapore is NOT a tax haven"....honest guv!! It just has a hugely beneficial tax system. Oh well.....that is a horse of a completely different colour.
I really don't know why you bothered to leave snaw, there is a prime position beckoning you back here as a NL spin doctor.
What with your propensity for bending the truth, you'd be a stick-on for an advisory position. Then you could get PAID for being a hypocrite instead of doing it for free in your spare time.

Nope, it's not a tax haven. Go look it up. It's a low tax state, but it's not a tax haven. Like I said, facts ain't your strong point.

[shaunbhoy]

I misquoted you, where?

In my first post I clearly stated "some of the feckless layabouts in the "poorest" households might then be persuaded to get off their lazy fat arses and find a job to supplement the handouts they currently receive from the rest of us then!!!"

You opted to selectively miss off that important distinction, which of course greatly alters the statement. Not sure whether or not you did it deviously, or simply as a result of the fact that your comprehension is not all that good.

You know SB, that word is a very close fit for how I think I, and I'll can take a stab at guessing most of the board also, perceive you if I recall the majority of the threads you're involved in.

You should steer clear of making wild stabs. For yet again you'd need to be cleaning the egg off your face.

HTH

[shaunbhoy]

Nope, it's not a tax haven. Go look it up. It's a low tax state, but it's not a tax haven.

Reduced to arguing semantics. You see? A natural spin doctor. Go for it.

[snaw]

Reduced to arguing semantics. You see? A natural spin doctor. Go for it.

LOL, can't back up your statement so instead resort to saying I'm using semantics. hehe

[d000hg]

LOL, can't back up your statement so instead resort to saying I'm using semantics. hehe

Yeah try asking him a direct question about pretty much any point you disagree, he's guaranteed to come back calling you stupid and hope you didn't notice he forgot the question. Like an autistic politician.

[shaunbhoy]

LOL, can't back up your statement so instead resort to saying I'm using semantics. hehe

So which statement do you want me to clarify for you NOW? Might as well cover it off for d000hg at the same time as he seems to be at the same level of "Janet and John" comprehension as you are.
I have laboriously explained most of the points you seem to keep missing, but there are only so many hours in a day.



Quick question for you that might save us all a bit of time. Do you regard Singapore as being "tax-friendly"?

Take your time.

[shaunbhoy]

Yeah try asking him a direct question about pretty much any point you disagree, he's guaranteed to come back calling you stupid and hope you didn't notice he forgot the question. Like an autistic politician.

Or like someone too dim to realise that the graph they put forward to try and make a point was completely irrelevant TO that point?

[snaw]

So which statement do you want me to clarify for you NOW? Might as well cover it off for d000hg at the same time as he seems to be at the same level of "Janet and John" comprehension as you are.
I have laboriously explained most of the points you seem to keep missing, but there are only so many hours in a day.



Quick question for you that might save us all a bit of time. Do you regard Singapore as being "tax-friendly"?

Take your time.

I don't live in a tax haven. I live in a country that has reasonably low income tax, with a completely transparent banking system, and which complies in the main with international regulations about exchanging
that information and isn't considered by the banking world to be an offshore financial centre (Be odd if it was, given it's probably the main Asia Pac HQ for many banks and MNC's).

I'm just back from swimming in the condo pool with the kids, about to have a well deserved cool beer in the a pleasant early evening sunshine, sans billy brag rose tinted glasses and I canny be arsed arguing any more with one of the lower rungs of CUK's evolution