"But that's not the way things should be. Healthcare is not a commodity. It is a right." - Singapore Democrats
Interesting.
If healthcare is not a commodity, I wonder what I am (and for that matter what SDP's "team of medical doctors" are) being paid for doing every day.
It is very easy for wannabe politicians to label every need as a right and champion the people's right. What is not addressed upfront is whose obligation it then becomes to provide for that right.
Healthcare is not something that you can simply harvest or dig out from the ground like natural resources. It *is* a commodity provided by healthcare workers, pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment manufacturers, as well as the people who fund and run hospitals and clinics.
When someone says that healthcare is not a commodity but a right, he can mean two things:
1. That he thinks he has a right to the property and labour of those people who provide healthcare
OR
2. That he thinks that he has a right to having someone else pay for his consumption of healthcare.
If you believe that a man's need entitles him to other people's property and labour or money to pay for the same, then why stop at healthcare? As I stated before (and will no doubt have to again in the future), healthcare is the 'wedge argument' for welfarism; if today they can claim that they are entitled to the commodity provided by the healthcare workers (or having other pay for their healthcare consumption), then tomorrow they can claim the same for that produced by those who provide food, water, clothing and shelter.
SDP is acting coy about what their self-proclaimed "landmark publication" of a "National Healthcare Plan" will entail, but I will hazard a guess that it involves the government picking up more of the tab than it already is, and that the amount of money required to fund this should come from taxing the rich even more than they are being taxed now.
Let's see if I will be proven wrong...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
81 comments:
Healthcare should be paid by taxpayers through the taxes collected by the government. It is a duty of the government to provide basic health care to all its citizen. And the cost of this is funded by all taxpayers. So doc, don't worry, you will still get paid.
Actually, the way to do it is not to tax the rich. It is to tax the middle income class.
I know this sounds "absurd" to some of you but having lived in a first world country and paid first world taxes I would say that's how the system works. It is the middle and upper lower income class that supports these social schemes.
The rich actually have a lot of tax breaks from all kinds of places. You'd be surprised to find that many high income earners pay very little tax even in places like Canada.
So enough talk. If you want a good national healthcare plan then pay for it through taxes.
I like the way angrydoc said "simply harvest or dig out from the ground like natural resources".
Yup in some countries that's what they can do. But even then the middle income pay much higher taxes than they do in Singapore.
There is no perfect system. You just have to choose what you believe in.
"So doc, don't worry, you will still get paid."
I'm not worried - I have a useful skill that is in demand, with or without a subsidised healthcare system.
Health care should be affordable relative to your ability to pay.
The difference should be taken up by the govt through taxes.
You can have a scale drawn up based on your annual salary.
A healthy nation can only be good for the country. Remember, the vast majority of diseases and illness is not of ones choosing. You can be less supportive of those who have what I would call ;life style' illnesses, eg too much wine, women and song!
"Health care should be affordable relative to your ability to pay."
The why shouldn't everything else too?
I don't choose to be hungry, thirsty, or cold either, so why shouldn't I work less hard, make less money, and pay proportionately less for the resources I consume?
Most of the developed world have a comprehensive healthcare system available to all. If the question is should this be fully funded by taxes or some level of subsidy, than each party can make their stand. Why doesn't this argument extend to Defense or Education is beyond me.
I would rather pay the money to the govt as taxes to ensure the sick is well taken care of in Singapore than spend that money getting insurances from profit making financial institutions.
In any case, you will still be paid indeed. You have a skill in demand and of coz, no worries for you. But. Given our lack of doctors, it appears that the public hospitals are resorting to importing doctors from 3rd world countries to make up the shortfall. Beware of wage depression. It hits. Everyone.
Really?
MOH has been "importing" foreign healthcare workers for years, and even this week they are talking about raising healthcare workers' pay in the parliament. Does that sound like wage depression to you?
It is so very sad that medical care has become a commodity, doctors have lost their vocation to be healers and patients have become consumers.
Surely we all want to live in a caring and compassionate society rather than in a hell where everybody is making use of everybody for the sake of money!
It is also important to see that taxes is actually the means by which we can pool our resources for the common good.
It is not wrong for doctors have an income - but this should be the fruit of their labours rather than the motive of their work.
Agapedoc
I think Chee, for the benefit of those like yourself, ought to have stated, 'Healthcare should not be a commodity'. Then, you wouldn't have had to wonder why you're being paid for what you do everyday.
You missed out a third reason as to why someone might think healthcare should not be a commodity - that in taking, we also give, in terms of goods and services. Paying for it is has a money economy as its foundation. And a money economy is oftentimes based on a class system. And a class system results in exploitation and relative advantage and disadvantage.
If you think about it further than you have, you'll realise that the argument for 'welfarism' comes from the realisation that the people have already paid for their medical expenses in the amount that they are exploited for in their daily work. We apply the same logic to machines, why not to humans.
You should read more beyond your medical journals. Might do much in giving you that part of intelligence, foresight, and wisdom that your course has left out.
"...a class system results in exploitation and relative advantage and disadvantage."
"...the people have already paid for their medical expenses in the amount that they are exploited for in their daily work."
Wow.
Do we live in the same country? In the same century?
"Surely we all want to live in a caring and compassionate society rather than in a hell where everybody is making use of everybody for the sake of money!
It is also important to see that taxes is actually the means by which we can pool our resources for the common good."
But isn't SDP's brand of socialism precisely that "hell" you so loath, where the rich are taxed disproportionately compared to the rest of their fellow countrymen based purely on the reason that they have earned more money? Why are they being discriminated against simply because they have put in the effort or taken the risk to make more money than the rest?
You call it pooling of resources for the common good, but what good does it do to the rich to give more to that pool than they receive from?
My income is both the fruits of my labour as well as my motive to work - with my income, I purchase commodities, goods and services which are the fruits of other people's labour. I trade the fruits of my labour for the fruits of other people's labour; I do not expect others to provide for my needs.
Some fruits are not proportionate to their labour. There are some who do not want others to provide for their needs, but their circumstances leave them no choice.
You may not receive as much as you give. That's a fact of life. Being so calculative will only earn you feelings of resentment.
"Why are they (the rich)being
discriminated against simply because they have put in the effort or taken the risk to make more money than the rest?"
In fact it is a blessing to be able to pay taxes - for that means we are having a good income! One's wealth is also not just from our own efforts. Let us not forget that it is the secure and safe society that enables the rich to earn a good income in the first place.
It is a truth that it is a greater blessing to give than to receive. If every citizen, rich or poor, can see that taxes is not punitive but a responsibility for the benefit of everyone in society, our world will be a better place to live in.
If each one of us can learn to live simply so that others may simply live, we will be able to die well because we have lived well.
Hi Gary
Is National Defence a commodity or a public good? Are safe streets a commodity or a public good? Is the assurance that if your child gets leukemia you will not go bankrupt something you would avoid??
If it is ok that policemen and regular soldiers should be paid for protecting us from macro-pathogens, then why the problem with those who protect us from microscopic ones?
Hello angrydoc
You ask what good pooling of resources for the common good does for the rich?
That's a hard-hearted way to think.
I'm not an economist (I'm sure if you ask the good ones they will be able to share with you some good reasons), but some reasons anyway:
1. The rich have more to gain from some public goods, e.g. national defence, and reduced crime through policing and maintenance of rule of law. But not all indeed.
2. Some intangibles are hard to put a value on, e.g. living (and your children growing up) in an egalitarian society, feeling happier, being less cynical, being part of a strong community (money is obviously not the only valuable thing out there) - all these are more likely without class divides.
That might be hard to imagine - so maybe it will help to consider Apartheid South Africa: to some people and societies, the callous way the rich treat the poor is likewise a violation of human dignity. (While to others - it is fine and just. Same as was the case in S.A., or pre-civil-rights America, etc etc) "Norms" (beliefs, values) are human and social constructs - and which norms ultimately make you happier? Which makes your life richer and more meaningful? You'll have to choose that for yourself. :-)
Anyway - re: whether healthcare should be a commodity... I'm not too sure if everyone is equivocating about "commodity".
Let me just chip in with this article: http://prospect.org/article/health-nations
It shows that there are various policy approaches to healthcare that can improve outcomes by various measures. Some of them involve welfare - some of them not. But what we can see is that an un-regulated free market tends not to provide it. :-)
"If it is ok that policemen and regular soldiers should be paid for protecting us from macro-pathogens, then why the problem with those who protect us from microscopic ones?"
My point is that it *is* OK for policemen and soldiers to be paid for doing their jobs - but why is it OK that people who benefit from their protection are not all paying the same amount?
"Is the assurance that if your child gets leukemia you will not go bankrupt something you would avoid??"
We've talked about this leukemia thing before. Why is it OK for me to transfer the cost of my child's leukemia treatment to other people? Why shouldn't I be responsible for my own child's healthcare needs? If I need help, why shouldn't I seek it from people and organisations who volunteer to help, instead of taking it from tax-payers who have no choice in that matter?
"You may not receive as much as you give. That's a fact of life. Being so calculative will only earn you feelings of resentment."
Sorry - is that addressed to me, or to SDP?
"Sorry - is that addressed to me, or to SDP?"
"You call it pooling of resources for the common good, but what good does it do to the rich to give more to that pool than they receive from?"
It is addressed to the rich, and I suppose it includes you.
So it's OK for the rich to "not receive as much as [they] give", they should accept it as "a fact of life" because "[b]eing so calculative will only earn [them] feelings of resentment", but it doesn't apply to the rest of society, who should have their needs paid for by the rich?
Seems legit...
Angry Doc.
The rich always have the option to leave for somewhere better.
There is no perfect system, there is no perfect life. You gain some, you lose some.
Apparently you feel that the taxation system is wrong. However that fact that you are still here means that there a lot more other things which you feel is right and makes the "wrong" taxation system tolerable.
In your previous arguments, you do not deny that the taxation system is necessary. Perhaps you could suggest a better taxation system to make your word closer to perfection.
Hi angrydoc
Re: "You call it pooling of resources for the common good, but what good does it do to the rich to give more to that pool than they receive from?"
Allow me to propose a diachronic perspective: the rich might one day be poor too. When you are poor - you might appreciate social safety nets.
Also, I invite you to consider a premise (or dare I say, axiom): humans deserve dignity. Whether it arises from empathy, ethics, or innate biological altruism, etc is another question. So - if you hold this to be true - then you might reason that social measures such as redistribution of wealth to achieve universal dignity is the right thing to do.
Poverty violates dignity. Being unable to treat your child dying of cancer violates it. Being so poor as to be a literal wage slave, to stay alive, violates it. (This is open to discussion - I'm just suggesting some yardsticks.)
Why does dignity matter? To clarify this - let's pose some rhetorical questions:
Aren't rights enough? People used to OWN slaves. And we gave them their rights? Who said slaves ought to have rights? Who said they were even humans?
How about colonial exploitation? Those are sub-human races out there - as proven by cranial measurements etc. Why do they deserve to be treated equally to real humans?
My point is - values regarding how we should treat other people change with time. Some societies today (to take an extreme case, think of China, where factory owners use industrial oil for mooncakes, drivers run over a child again and again, friends celebrate a classmate's suicide as there are now less competitors etc) don't believe as much in dignity for their fellow man.
While on the other hand - some countries in North Europe care a lot about it.
There's no absolute right and wrong here - but I'll just share my personal opinion that I think North Europe is more enlightened - and I would much much rather live and raise children in such a place, than say Singapore.
"... that fact that you are still here means that there a lot more other things which you feel is right and makes the "wrong" taxation system tolerable."
Correct. However, what we are facing now is increasing presure from parties with socialist agendas who are trying to mkae what is "wrong" even more so so that they can gain political power.
I want to make a stand against that. This is my home too - I don't think I should be told to take it or leave.
@angry doc
Oh - and I also highly commend this book by Jared Diamond - "Collapse".
It analyses a range of archaeological sites to find out why many groups have collapsed due to environmental disaster, and how some which are on the brink managed to survive.
Examples of collapse are: Greenland Vikings, Anasazi Indians, Easter Islanders.
A very interesting read - and Diamond's provides some very relevant insights to this discussion here, and to other world issues like global warming too. I'll leave it to you to explore on your own. Have fun! :-)
"humans deserve dignity"
I'm sorry - the word "deserve" doesn't compute.
Whose obligation is it to provide that which you think is "deserved"? By what right do you impose this obligation unto them?
"Poverty violates dignity."
And progressive taxation "violates" the principle of equality. So who decides that we may "violate" some people's right to equality under the law so that we can give others the dignity which they "deserve"?
"My point is - values regarding how we should treat other people change with time."
Indeed. Over the last two centuries people have begun to think that the needs of some people entitle them to empower their governments to claim the money and property of others; they believe that they can vote themselves into taking money that they have not earned themselves. They think that the rich owe society (by which they really mean themselves) a debt over and above everyone else in society, and that progressive taxation is just and fair.
I am saying we should treat all people equally, and not make some shoulder a greater burden just because they have more and because there is more of us.
If you think you can gain dignity by taking from others what you have not earned yourself, then I think you are mistaken.
@Angry doc - going by your argument, the government should also not fund education that enables every child (who is a citizen) to receive education up to Pre U level and subsidise tertiary education (in the form of tuition grant). All education should be at full cost then. Too bad if you/your parents are too poor, even if you are smart enough. I believe many successful doctors wouldn't have achieved the status they now enjoy had medical education not been heavily subsidised by taxpayers money to give them a chance to study medicine.
I see what angrydoc's idea of a good society is.
Every man for himself.
If you have a child who gets leukemia and you cannot afford the treatment then plan for the child's funeral.
And in the meantime I get to keep all the money I earned for myself and spend on whatever I want to.
That's fair right?
That's a good society to live in.
I hope more Singaporeans will continue to think like this.
Hello angrydoc
You're missing the main gist of my argument. I'm basically proposing that you consider adding more principles into your decision making matrix - beyond just your "equality" principle.
"Whose obligation is it to provide that which you think is "deserved"? By what right do you impose this obligation unto them?"
I am suggesting the possiblity of such a belief/value - an axiom. It doesn't compute because axioms are ultimate premises that we don't deconstruct. If you don't hold this value - then you don't. We all have ultimately different moralities.
Do you agree with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? In part or whole? That is an example of a set of axioms.
I have no right to impose this. In democracies the people have the right to impose it on themselves. I'm persuading you to consider this axiom - and perhaps adopt it as another weighted principle.
Principles/axioms often clash. Sometimes our actions are a choice for the lesser of two (subjective) evils. E.g.
1. Killing a person is immoral.
2. Murder should be punished by death - an eye for an eye - i.e. the death penalty.
2. Violates 1., but you will find that many people profess to believe in both 1. and 2. And they work out weights for these principles - such that on balance we can decide 2. is justifiable (or not).
I do agree with some parts of the "equal treatment" principle - but it is weighted below assuring a minimum standard of human rights and dignity for all, to me.
And yes you are right there are people who believe in "socialism" nowadays. Just like there were people who believed in various ideologies throughout history. Some of those beliefs were very worthwhile and admirable, while others were deplorable. But only history will judge us. I bet the slave owners, the colonial masters, the nazis, those against women's suffrage, saw themselves as clearly in the right as well - unaware they and their ideas would be condemned and repudiated in future.
"Indeed. Over the last two centuries people have begun to think that the needs of some people entitle them to empower their governments to claim the money and property of others; they believe that they can vote themselves into taking money that they have not earned themselves. They think that the rich owe society (by which they really mean themselves) a debt over and above everyone else in society, and that progressive taxation is just and fair.
I am saying we should treat all people equally, and not make some shoulder a greater burden just because they have more and because there is more of us."
Let's not just argue for one aspect of a very complex and multi-faceted problem. You have your points - but you're ignoring all other pertinent points.
I don't speak for everyone - but I do agree with you that progressive taxation is unfair and more (e.g. progressive taxation erodes incentive for people to be productive) - but then again, it might just be the lesser of two evils. Not having it could be worse. (Consider some real-life laboratories such as Scandinavia and the USA - I've lived in Denmark before and was very impressed.) Perhaps even result in collapse - in the worst case. (Like I suggested - read the book!)
I would also like to clarify that I don't think progressive taxation should be crafted such that the tax burden is borne mostly by the rich - I'm more concerned about addressing under-investment in health and education among the poor (and to a smaller the lower-middle class). If the tax burden falls largely on the middle class I would support it even more than if it falls on the rich.
I also think we need effective and efficient policies (c.f. my earlier link to Klein's article "The Health of Nations") - more than we need to make taxes more progressive. Singapore has a large enough budget that we might not have to look at taxing the rich more to ensure decent education and health outcomes for everyone. We just have to change priorities. Isn't it better to spend what money you have wisely - than to fight for higher taxes to be spent unwisely? (Right now a lot of the budget is being fed back to the GLCs via defence and transport spending, among other things; a lot is also going into reserves - I'm curious why...)
And. It's a little like the Prisoner's Dilemma too. Sometimes we need to cooperate to get better outcomes. So don't keep casting issues as "us vs them"? It alienates and divides. It doesn't just hurt you, it hurts us ALL.
It makes me sad to see people thinking like this. :-(
Certainly I acknowledge that our proclaimed list of rights are often conflicting, but as you said, it is a matter of deciding which rights are more... shall we say, fundamental (at the risk of being labelled a 'fundamentalist')?
You accuse me of casting the whole thing in an "us vs. them" scenari - well, what I see happening now is exatly the utilitsation this "us vs. them" psychology on the part of some people to try to gain political power. In their worldview, the rich are the cause of poverty and they must bear the burden of correcting that. I am saying that we should not treat people unequally (being taxed more heavily yet denied subsidies) because they happen to have earned more money.
"I am saying that we should not treat people unequally (being taxed more heavily yet denied subsidies) because they happen to have earned more money."
Can the same principle be applied to other situations?
I pay the same fare as that pregnant lady or that 100 year old hunchbacked grandmother so I have as much rights to the seat as them. I should not feel ashamed for not giving up my seat to them in a crowded bus or MRT? I also used so much effort to squeeze past them to get to the seat before them. It is not my fault for being stronger and faster than them rite? I should also get to enjoy the fruits of my efforts rite?
You accuse me of casting the whole thing in an "us vs. them" scenario - well, what I see happening now is exactly the utilitsation this "us vs. them" psychology on the part of some people to try to gain political power. In their worldview, the rich are the cause of poverty and they must bear the burden of correcting that. I am saying that we should not treat people unequally (being taxed more heavily yet denied subsidies) because they happen to have earned more money.
that would be stuff like marx and exploitation - a very divisive rhetoric indeed. i agree with his analysis about the exploitation caused by unfettered capitalism - but i disagree with the class warfare rhetoric. (i don't think SDP is campaigning on the "it's the rich's fault" rhetoric though - are you picking that up from events in america?) i'm noticing, however, that in the USA - it is the republicans, i.e. the rich, who start the cries of "class warfare". (though to be fair - they do it in response to rhetoric about the 1 percenter)
but of course - right? we're looking at the USA, and at Singapore. i doubt if such strong class consciousness even exists in more equitable (and usually more socialist) societies. but it's a bit of a chicken and an egg - does our discourse reflect our society - or does it shape it? maybe we can't help talking in divisive terms because we live in a divisive (classwise) society.
in any case - as a blogger - you do have an opportunity to be the egg - if you shape discourse a certain way, you might be able to shape society as well. with great power comes great responsibility, perhaps? (though of course you are the chicken as well - and it is the fault of the egg you are born from that you are a particular kind of chicken)
re: which rights are more fundamental/important/carry more weight - yes precisely what i'm trying to get at.
so are you really convinced that human dignity carries so little weight?
and separately, do you really think equality of taxation overrides equality of opportunity?
for example, i've heard, over the years, from (at least) three different people - a researcher at CRPP, one of my tutors at NIE (former NUS Political Science faculty) (yes I was a teacher before), and most recently at the SMU forum with Heng Swee Keat - saying that our primary school student intake system denies equality of opportunity.
http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_761690.html
in addition to ms mathew's and mr ong's points (housing cost near good schools, parents' ability to donate and volunteer, certain public schools getting more resources than others), also consider that further to not being able to afford national day costumes - students in neighbourhood schools cannot invest in much personal development, and thus get less and lower quality academic help, exposure to sports and culture, etc. i.e. what Bourdieu calls social and cultural capital.
we are in danger of under-investing in our people. it's strange how we wave about the rhetoric of not having natural resources (c.f. lawmaker Low Yen Ling, formerly of EDB, in parliament), while erasing the fact that precisely because of this - we ought to invest in our human resources. (in fact - according to what Stiglitz calls the "resource curse", it is exactly countries with no natural resources that tend to invest more in people, e.g. africa vs asian tigers) but i digress to an efficient allocation of resources argument (which is a different one from the "fairness/equality" type - what a multi-faceted problem this is!)
(pardon the shift to an education perspective - i am afterall an ex-educator. i'm sure similar situations arise in healthcare as well though - i.e. some people under-invest in healthcare because they lack resources and knowledge - they suffer poor nutrition as children, and suffer developmentally as a result, and as adults are afflicted with health problems which are reasonably cheap to prevent or treat, but which they can't afford, etc)
so, ultimately, which kind of fairness do we want to defend and promote? which kind of fairness produces a better society? which kind of fairness makes sense to you? (because there is no "objective" equality - they are all human constructs)
Ends and means, eremarf; we can all do with more resource and more investment - the question is how much unfairness you are willing to tolerate to achieve your "fair society".
As for the "class warfare rhetoric", I point you to this article on the SDP website:
http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/3777-what-kind-of-a-society-have-we-become
This debate on "healthcare as a commodity" vs "healthcare as a right" goes on in many places around the world.
http://www.edmontonexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?archive=true&e=3486742
The keypoint to note is that the people vote on which system they want to have.
The question for me is whether in Singapore, the system in place is what the majority of people choose to have. Perhaps one can argue that in Singapore you CANNOT AFFORD to choose.
But in general that's the way it is. There's no right or wrong answer. It's like someone arguing whether the char kway teow is more delicious than chicken rice.
"The keypoint to note is that the people vote on which system they want to have."
The question is whether people have a right to vote themselves to other people's money. Democracy should defend rights, not violate them.
@Angry Doc
IRAS just announced that the middle income earners would be taxed less this year, the taxing system would be more progressive. Its time to make your stand heard by the relevant parties.
Re: Why we should pay for our neighbour's child with leukemia:
1) It is not the child's fault. It could well be us. There but for the grace of God go I.
2) From a purely utilitarian point of view, that child now has a good chance of growing up and eventually becoming the policeman who ensures that my posessions are safe
3) For the same reason that we who have no children pay for the education of those who do...It makes society better and is part of our obligations as citizens
4) We are part of the whole - no man or woman is an island. If one Singaporean suffers unfairly, all of us feel the pain to varying degrees
5) Finally, it is the right thing to do
Well, Prof,
1) Fault is not the point here. It may not be the child's fault that he needs the treatment, but he *is* the one who needs the treatment.
2) Irrelevant - the child also has a chance of growing up to become a criminal.
3) Obligations as citizens change as a nation evolves. Isn't that what SDP hopes to effect?
4) Really? Am I supposed to feel a great disturbance in the Force when that happens? How is a child having leukemia "unfair" then? How is me having to pay for part of his treatmet "fair" when I had nothing to do with him having leukemia in the first place?
5) Well, that settles it then, doesn't it? Why didn't you say so sooner?
Are you saying, that we should have lower income tax, and take on more private insurance like in HK and US?
If someone works as hard as you do, do you think they deserve to earn less than you do?
I come from 2 diff backgrounds. My parents are stinking rich, they work non stop, but I am stinking poor, work two jobs just to make ends meet. My parents complain non stop about the taxes they have to pay and how unfair it is that they have to give money to something they don't use, and I complain non stop about how I can't afford my own medical bills and further education without using THEIR money. I am a white collar, productive working class btw. And I do not see why, as a working class person, do I need to beg my parents to use their money for further education or my medical bills.
I also do not see why, anyone in my position, should need to take out their parent's Medisave for that reason. If they do, something is just, not right.
But is taxing the rich more, going to solve this issue? Subsidising healthcare will help, but we are not like Cuba, with so many doctors at hand.
I know it sounds very naive, but I think it would be good to have people choose where they want to put their tax money into. Maybe in that way, we will feel less... upset. A form of charity on our part. I also think our govt is smart enough in their investments, and surely they do not need to tax us so much?
I believe everyone deserves the right to basic healthcare and education. I believe that for an economy to grow, you NEED to have a healthy population. I am leaning a lot towards the socialist state, but I have also see how this would not work, since we do not have oil and gas like Norway does.
I am just wondering, why not use our country's investments, or corporate taxes? Why not let us choose where we want to use our taxes for?
PS: our police force is really... cannot make it >.< I will not be relying on them to keep my neighbourhood safe!
How much money you make is not based on how "hard" you work, but on how much your consumers are willing to pay you.
Prof
Would agree for children and especially those who are born normal.
However, i feel very concerned when extraordinary procedures are done for those whose lives are practically as a living vegetable.
Although painful, those although very sad, going off gently into the night would bring some closure.
angrydoc,
the problem, is what is defined as basic healthcare,
all medical conditions with high rates of survival(>70%). and quality of life may be one.
Would be interested to know your definition.
I guess I've said enough.
You clearly weight your notion of fairness very highly, and reject all other ideas of fairness, without giving them a fair examination.
For example, let me critique your responses to Paul Ananth:
1. Read arguments supporting luck egalitarianism, equality of opportunity
2. The chance of the child growing up to be a productive citizen and an asset to society is higher than that he will be a liability e.g. a criminal (even a highly selfish person like you is still probably overall a net benefit. Unless you die young in your prime, wasting the investment in you. Which I would lament.).
3. Paul shared an axiom he holds true - you deny its truth to you (actually you didn't deny anything explicitly - you asked a rhetorical question and I supplied the answer) - both of you are entitled to your views. Ethically my views are with Paul here.
4. Paul articulates another of his ethical values - you deny that you have such a belief. Again - everyone's free to believe. I'm with Paul again here though.
5. Another ethical judgement. I'm with Paul again (while you're opposed).
To sum up - we've had 3 threads:
A. luck and equality
B. utilitarianism
C. ethics
Analysing A. and B. can shape our ethics (by letting us perceive things we were previously blind to) - but you tend to avoid discussions about those, and just keep re-iterating your version of C. You keep harping on "fairness" - but you don't seem interested in deconstructing or defining what "fairness" is, and why your version is more utilitarian, more pragmatic, or better in some other way than others' versions.
For example, some pragmatic arguments for greater "equality" in wealth:
1. Wealth inequality in the US corresponds inversely with economic growth. Data is available on various websites. Today's US wealth inequality matches (or exceeds) those just preceding the Great Depression. (And we've been in a depression since 2008.) The post-war economic boom also featured the lowest wealth inequality ever in the US. The middle class consumes and drives the economy. When the middle classes become poor - they just stop consuming.
2. When the rich hold more of the resources in society - less of it gets channeled into human capital. Witness how investing in human capital (education, health, etc), sparked by the Industrial Revolution, led to the demographic transition, and its attendant "benefits" (yes, they are subjective value judgements, but I think you will find empirical support for them). Thus wealth inequality makes society worse off as a whole.
2. Wealth (in)equality (especially via inheritance, gifts, and some, e.g. Paul, say luck) affects equality of opportunity. It is not "efficient" when people succeed based on those factors. For example - a poor child is smarter than a rich child - but due to lack of access to nutrition, education, social connections, etc he becomes a farmer but the other a doctor. This is inefficient allocation of scarce talent. Society would benefit more if the poor farmer were a doctor instead. You can substitute various identities for "poor child" and "rich child", e.g. "girl" and "boy", "black" and white", "leukemia-stricken child" and "disease-free child", etc.
(Re: SDP article - they're in politics, and politicians tend to talk like that. Not the best way to convince me (though I'm convinced by other analyses, e.g. Stiglitz and Krugman) - and not the best thing to do to a country. but that's their niche in our political ecology. And SDP is, on the whole, a lesser evil in our political scene, IMHO. In fact - so much rests on their shoulders that they seem rather heroic to me, in spite of abovesaid.)
Oops there I go again. Well I don't intend to post anymore, ya? Good luck with your ideas! I appreciate that you are so open with posting opposing views - I think that's wonderful. Three cheers for free speech! May the best ideas win!
"The keypoint to note is that the people vote on which system they want to have."
The question is whether people have a right to vote themselves to other people's money. Democracy should defend rights, not violate them.
Sorry I can't help commenting... last post - really! - democracy DOES defend rights - of the majority. That's why some people call it the tyranny of the majority. (Yes it does have its flaws.)
Also - your definition of "rights" is shifty. Why do you assert that fair taxation is a right, but deny that universal healthcare and education are rights? You know the Universal Declaration of Human Rights acknowledges (a limited form of) the latter two but not the former? I suppose you disagree with the UDHR.
"Why do you... deny that universal healthcare and education are rights?"
I'll point you to this article which I linked to some time ago.
http://newasiarepublic.com/?p=16920
dear angrydoc,
I have to say you have become more and more right wing as the years have progressed. I am quite surprised actually. Back in the days when I was debating with uglybaldie I remember you much different as you are now.
I wondered why. My postulation is that as the years progressed, you earned more money, and as a result paid more taxes. This together with heavy inflation has made you feel the pinch (so to speak).
Coupled with the constant heckling from patients making snide comments about being "expensive" etc has turned you into a very bitter person when it comes to SHARING.
Note the word SHARING.
It is as simple as that. SHARING.
Angrydoc does not agree with the principle of SHARING. Especially when you are FORCED to SHARE.
I am also sure there are many Singaporeans who share his views. I pray that no disaster befalls Singapore, for if an earthquake or tsunami were to hit, you can imagine how it would be to have everyone care for themselves and REFUSE TO SHARE.
Cheers
"FORCED to SHARE."
And you believe that we have a right to force people to share?
SMC should investigate an uncaring doctor like angrydr.
His comments make me wonder why he enter medical school in the first place, enjoying subsidised medical education assuming he studied in NUS or Duke NUS but unwilling to serve the poor and needy patients.
@Anonymous
I think it's very unfair to say that he is uncaring. it is proven that people may portray their views strongly online, but are actually moderate in reality (i hope that is the case for angrydoc)
I know many docs (or other professionals for that matter) that bitch about what angrydoc is talking abt, when they see a case that is desperate and falls out with our so call 'safety net', they do step in and open their wallets (a little, but hey, at least they open it up)
We must also know that doctors are very overworked, received lots of unreasonable complaints and are generally very unhappy with how the system runs. When you are unhappy, you become disillusioned and will look for an ideology to make things better
It's actually a good thing that he is expressing free speech, and showing us the different mindsets of our healthcare providers, than to give the general public some fairytale story of how doctors are saints and have no temper, going around healing the poor. I mean, they all have their own needs as well. And they risk going bankrupt/killing someone when they accidentally leave an instrument in the patient's stomach. When you study to become a doctor, you don't think, 'i want to save the world and be poor for the rest of my life,' you think, 'there is a under supply, i get to save some people, and get a FAT paycheck.' THAT is reality
I am not defending his ethical views though! just the person and his freedom of speech.
Also, @angrydoc: customers ALWAYS want to pay the least amount for the BEST work. Are you willing to pay your secretary more money than what you are earning to keep your schedule well organised better than you possibly can thus saving you time for meals and entertainment time? Or can you say that the person that is spitting out your fave Nat Geo series does not deserve the money you are earning, though they are providing great entertainment?
This is not how much a consumer wants to pay, but how much a company can pocket for themselves.
And humans do deserve dignity. No matter who they are. They DO deserve the basic healthcare, but I strongly believe the govt has enough money to not take it out from the taxpayers.
@ Anon
Angry doc did not say he refused to serve the poor and needy patients.
He is speaking not in the capacity of a doctor but as a Singaporean who has been made to pay more and more taxes and is not happy about it.
@Angry Doc
"I want to make a stand against that. This is my home too"
As I have mentioned earlier, it is time to make your stand heard by the relevant parties. However with such strong counter-arguements from eremarf and Prof, you should prepare yourself for a tough fight.
Why are you privileging the views of Ho Say Peng over so many other great thinkers? He asserts many falsehoods such as the below:
The ‘act’ of not violating another’s rights is a non-action which is necessary for the preservation of rights. This is not a conflict or compromise of rights but is consistent with the concept of rights (and reality), for there is no such thing as having a ‘right’ to violate rights. It is self-contradictory. (And contradictions don’t exist in reality.) If one wishes for one’s own rights to be recognized and protected, it means a self-chosen obligation to respect the rights of others. It is a line of division – implicit in the nature of rights – that preserves both rights untouched.
There are indeed rights that violate rights - when ethical principles clash, e.g. death penalty vs right to life, or freedom to act (murder, or smoke), vs the rights of others to life or good health. Clashes occur all the time. Contradictions DO occur in reality. I could be a smoker but support anti-smoking laws to defend the health of my non-smoking family and friends.
Or another choice one is:
There is only one way to violate rights: through the use of physical force. It is by means of physical force that man can be denied of his right to life: by killing him, by robbing him, by enslaving him, by preventing him to use his mind to act on his own independent judgment and by forcing him to act against his own judgment. The principle of rights bars the use of physical force from social relationships. But there must be an institution whose sole purpose is the enforcement and protection of rights. Such an institution is the government.
No - there're lots of ways to violate rights other than through violence. That much must be obvious. Is it "violence" when our right to free speech is denied with laws that demand a licence to publish or to speak and assemble publicly? If it is - it is metaphorical violence.
I know he is quoting or based off of Locke - but he leaves out so much of what Locke says - such as Locke also saying that government is legitimate only so long as it continues to enjoy the consent of the governed, and that when government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right, it is the duty of the people to alter or abolish it and institute new government. (Locke was referring to revolutions to overthrow monarchies.)
http://newasiarepublic.com/?p=16920
I just read the comments for the above. You had a very informative exchange with Fox there. Highly recommended read. Should have just pointed everyone there in the first place instead of typing everything up lousily myself. :-S
I was also quite relieved to see there were Singaporeans defending us from ultra-rightist views. (I think the same people defend us from ultra-leftist views as well.)
Moderation is smarter, at least according to Cecil: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3033/are-blue-states-smarter-than-red-states
"There are indeed rights that violate rights... Contradictions DO occur in reality."
Yes, and I agreed with you earlier. It's a matter of which rights you hold more fundamental than others.
"Is it "violence" when our right to free speech is denied with laws that demand a licence to publish or to speak and assemble publicly? If it is - it is metaphorical violence."
Untrue. All violations of rights are eventually based on actual, physical violence.
What happens to you if you proceed to speak in public without a license? The police will attempt to stop you. What happens when you persist? They will physically stop you. If they jail you and you refuse to go to jail, or attempt to escape from jail? Then what happens?
What happens when you refuse to pay taxes? They will try to take your money from your bank account. If you take the money out of your bank and hold in in your hands? They will physically take it from you. If you resist?
Let's not kid ourselves: the way the state ultimately enforces ALL its laws is through violence (although in most cases the threat of violence is enough).
"Are you willing to pay your secretary more money than what you are earning to keep your schedule well organised better than you possibly can thus saving you time for meals and entertainment time?"
I *can't* pay my secretary MORE money than what I am earning.
"It's a matter of which rights you hold more fundamental than others."
Let me rephrase that:
Contradictions occur only if we get our definitions of what constitute "rights" wrong in the first place.
If you define right to property as a right and right to healthcare as a right too, and then you attempt to violate righ to property to fulfill right to healthcare, then you indeed have a contradiction.
What Ho is (and most Libertarians are) saying is that you CANNOT have a "right" that is based upon the violation of a more fundamental right, because that WILL cause a contradiction.
What I meant when I said that contradictions do occur is that we do violate a person's right to liberty when he harms or attempts to harm someone else, on the basis that his exercise of his right to act as he wishes violates the right to life and integrity of bdy/liberty of another person.
angrydoc,
well if it comes to the point where Singapore's taxes are too much for you, and the people have voted to FORCE YOU TO SHARE, you can always move somewhere where taxes are lower.
So in that sense, it's not all forced by violence.
Same with those people who feel strongly against what the majority in Singapore vote for.
MOVE somewhere where people choose to share more and healthcare is a basic right and not a commodity. NOBODY IS FORCEING YOU TO STAY IN SINGAPORE
This is like the Singapore blogosphere's version of Godwin's Law, isn't it?
Sooner or later, someone says: That's the way this country is - if you don't like it, you should just leave.
Contradictions occur only if we get our definitions of what constitute "rights" wrong in the first place.
So what do we mean by rights? Please define them for me and I will argue based on your definitions.
What Ho is (and most Libertarians are) saying is that you CANNOT have a "right" that is based upon the violation of a more fundamental right, because that WILL cause a contradiction.
You assert it as if it is a universal truth to everyone. Actually, you can CHOOSE to hold that principle (that no two contradictory rights may be held at one time) - but it's not true for all.
I, for example, think people can have contradictory rights. And I think the contradiction is resolved by choosing to WEIGHT one right over another. Or to define and limit the scope of rights.
For example, according to the UDHR Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
In order to make (at least elementary) education free, we will have to pay for it with public money.
We could have per capita taxation (like class fund). Oh not enough money. And some people are so poor they can't afford the tax - what then?
Can we use another system? e.g. fixed % tax - some people earn $500 and get taxed 20%, and some $50,000 and also pay 20% - hey that's not fair! It violates right to property! Hmmm. Thorny issue... weights come into play. I weight right to basic education above right to property in this instance - and advocate fixed % tax.
What if We add up the monies and find that we still cannot fund a meaningful elementary education? In such a case - I compare the weights again, and choose to advocate progressive taxation - violating right to property even more - in order to ensure the right to elementary education.
(For societies that define education rights as going beyond elementary schooling - this is a very real problem.)
You realise that the greater the income disparity - the more likely we have to violate right to property to ensure other rights? You can refuse it - but in a democracy you can't refuse the demos - and Locke says we have a duty to organise government to serve the majority. Sorry about that... leaving the country is an option - but staying and respecting the decision of the demos is another too.
Or do you really mean:
THE RIGHT TO PROPERTY SUPERCEDES ALL OTHER RIGHTS.
It is a more fundamental right, just like some animals are more equal than others? (I suggest - instead of saying it is more fundamental - just say it deserves more weight.)
Untrue. All violations of rights are eventually based on actual, physical violence.
How about libel, or blackmail? I can do nothing to your body - only to your reputation - but you would claim I were violating your rights in slandering you, or "forcing" you to particular acts. How about discriminatory employment due to your race? I'm not hurting you - but I violated your right as well.
angrydoc,
I don't think it's a case of "That's the way this country is - if you don't like it, you should just leave."
It's more you CAN leave.
It's just like you CAN pay more taxes. Or you CAN have a system that recognizes healthcare as a basic right. Or you CAN pay less taxes or you CAN have a system where healthcare is treated as a commodity.
Let me ask you a question angrydoc. Do you think you pay too much taxes in Singapore?
Honestly there aren't that many countries left out there where you pay lower taxes legally.
I wonder where the 20% pay rise for healthcare professionals is going to come out from?
"Do you think you pay too much taxes in Singapore?"
I do.
"Honestly there aren't that many countries left out there where you pay lower taxes legally."
That's true. And if I were living somewhere else I will be complaining of the same thing; you just wouldn't be reading about it because it's not a Singapore blog.
"I wonder where the 20% pay rise for healthcare professionals is going to come out from?"
It's going to come from the people one way or another, either directly out-of-pocket, or through taxes. But as the tax burden is not equal, some will and do foot more of that bill than others, even when they are not actually consuming any of the commodity.
eremarf,
I don't think we have difficulty understanding each other - we just don't agree.
"How about libel, or blackmail?"
Got me there.
"How about discriminatory employment due to your race?"
I don't recognise a right to employment.
eremarf, I don't think we have difficulty understanding each other - we just don't agree.
That's good. :-) I respect your right to hold your views. But we disagree on moral/ethical values.
I just replied so that your readers can see the issue deconstructed, and can make up their own minds about the issue - instead of just adopting views from others (e.g. accept that contradictory rights are impossible, that rights are either-or, or that compromise is impossible when there is conflict between rights.)
So, to summarise, some important things are:
1. Your views about healthcare are founded on certain moral/ethical values and stands.
a. right to property (i.e. wealth) is weighted more heavily (or even considered inviolable) compared to other rights, such as the right to (particular levels, as described above, of) healthcare, dignity, and other public goods like education, security of person and property, freedom from racial discrimination, etc
b. in simple english - this means that you think it is more important that an individual's wealth should be her own, than used to to ensure her society is free from easily preventable diseases, are able to access doctors for general healthcare, and get help in being treated for expensive illnesses, e.g. leukemia;
you also think it is more important that an individual's wealth be her own, than used to ensure people in her society manage to live with dignity (as yet undefined - but we can hammer something out if need be).
(At this juncture - I wonder why you don't speak out against the use of your tax money to subsidise education for foreigners vs citizens - my own view is that, as things stand now, the marginal return from subsidising foreigners' education does not outweigh that of subsidising citizens. Or in healthcare, about subsidies for citizens vs PRs vs foreigners - does it matter who your tax money is spent on? Or spending your tax money on defence, vs other things? I guess you will say don't touch any of it - but what if that's not an option? Assuming it must be taxed and spent (I cannot even imagine enough people ever voting for a society without taxation) - what should it, then, be spent on?)
2. Your views about healthcare tend to NOT to take into account economic/pragmatic/broader philosophical arguments for or against it. It argues only on one ethical principle, i.e. (1) above, and tries to sideline the rest by calling on Ho Say Peng's assertion that no conflicting rights can be held).
You have avoided discussions about these (though understandably they can become quite technical). Readers should be aware that taxation, healthcare and other public goods, can be understood in a richer and more complex framework - that very likely will provide more satisfying answers than what we see here.
One example of economic arguments is to read the exchange between Fox and angry doc, in the comments to http://newasiarepublic.com/?p=16920.
A poor example of broader or more complex philosophical argument is - since property rights improve the individual's condition, and other rights improve society's condition - which should we prioritise and how? What is the relationship between the individual and the society(s) she resides in? How should she act towards society? In exploring the individual-society relationship - we will probably uncover more moral/ethical principles that will weigh in on the conflict between property rights and other rights.
Thanks again, angry doc, for publishing my comments (perhaps the fact that you are willing to do so, is because you put a strong weight on right to free speech relative to right to property? I am afterall opposing your stand on property - but instead of suppressing my comments - you publish them. Kudos to that!)
Healthcare should be neither a commodity nor a right. It may be a... privilege. It is a privilege to win against the diseases which, less than 100 years ago, would have killed you without the use of vaccines/antibiotics/surgery. Being a privilege does not mean that it should be scarce, however.
With improvements in engineering and science, what was once a privilege and is now a right (in this current day) is the right to have a hygienic environment to live in, through the use of utilities like clean drinking water - the provision of which is *scalable* and possibly *economically feasible*.
That said, perhaps a day will come when healthcare in all its complexity becomes scalable and mankind's more pressing concerns like *malnutrition* have been addressed. Then when people proclaim it as a right - no one would bother to argue.
"Thanks again, angry doc, for publishing my comments"
That long post of yours went into the spam folder. Lucky I saw it. :)
"I wonder why you don't speak out against the use of your tax money to..."
Because this is a "medical" blog.
If this was an "education" or "defence" blog, I might be writing on those subjects.
I'm a libertarian who's been following this discussion for some time.
But having said that, I do understand the utilitarian position, even though it has its own flaws. (For example, the assertion that rich people have a higher opportunity cost than others if public services were withdrawn a) doesn't apply for all services where there may be private alternatives, and b) doesn't justify progressive (disproportionate) taxation, only that the rich pay proportionally more.
It's good that most of the major players in this conversation seem to understand that it's all about striking a balance.
The good doctor acknowledges the need for taxation, while eremarf acknowledges that efficient spending is just as important as additional spending.
1) While I agree with eremarf's observation that people weight contradictory rights to eliminate dissonance, I think he has neglected an important dimension: to consider the current state of affairs in his decision-making.
For instance, he cites the provision of elementary education as an example, and claims that this "right" should always trump the "right to property". But what if, for argument's sake, this can only be achieved if the "right to property" were totally extinguished? (i.e if tax rates were 100%) Will you still support such a measure, eremarf? I don't think any reasonable person could.
My experience in Australia has been that most moderate libertarians - and conservatives for that matter - have no issue with a reasonable amount of wealth redistribution in the name of equal opportunity. Not many would argue against educating the young and ensuring a healthy population.
Our indignation stems from the fact that many have, after some time, come to take these things for granted. A large number now fail to acknowledge these as concessions - and instead use this as a new yardstick to demand even more, to move even further away from what was previously balanced.
Essentially the problem then becomes one of defining exactly what is "reasonable".
The current situation in Singapore, of course, would be another story altogether.
2)
(quote)
a. right to property (i.e. wealth) is weighted more heavily (or even considered inviolable) compared to other rights, such as the right to (particular levels, as described above, of) healthcare, dignity, and other public goods like education, security of person and property, freedom from racial discrimination, etc
(/quote)
That's an overly simplistic way of framing the issue - a false dichotomy. In reality, people would weight the "right to property" more heavily against some of those (e.g. environmental issues, undergraduate education maybe?) and less heavily against others (healthcare) - and to varying degrees in different circumstances for each.
It's equally complicated on the spending side of things, mainly because funds are fungible, i.e can be interchangeably used for different purposes.
It's not as easy as saying, oh, we don't have enough to fund something important like education or healthcare, so we'll have to tax people more.
You have to examine the reasons for the shortfall, and whether other measures could be introduced - more efficient spending, cutting back on less important programs.
For example, the left-wing Labor government here will be politically destroyed at the next elections, partly because they spent so much pandering to green causes that they ran out of money for education.
It really annoys me that most people (and politicians) immediately turn to tax hikes by default, simply because they are politically expedient.
One last thing:
The "right to property" is not necessarily mutually exclusive to a utilitarian worldview.
Two words: flat tax.
Generally speaking, the same amount of aggregate revenue can be raised using a flat 20% rate.
Why it hasn't been done: the vast majority of people will pay more than they currently do, making it politically unsalable.
For example, 1/3 of Australians pay no tax, and 1/2 of all Australians pay next to no tax.
The top 50% of taxpayers account for 90% of tax collected.
Thanks for writing, Melbourne.
Just to give some local figures:
In Singapore personal income tax accounts for about 1/7 of tax revenue. Corporate tax accounts for 1/4 (2011 figures).
About half of working residents do not pay income tax. The top 11% earners account for 80% of the individual income tax collected (2009 figures).
Goods and Services Tax form 1/5 of the tax revenue; but let's not get started on the morality behind taxing people for spending money, shall we?
Hello Melbourne
It's good that most of the major players in this conversation seem to understand that it's all about striking a balance.
I agree - I only chipped in to make sure this point was understood - because it didn't start off like this.
But what if, for argument's sake, this can only be achieved if the "right to property" were totally extinguished? (i.e if tax rates were 100%) Will you still support such a measure, eremarf? I don't think any reasonable person could.
You're right - I won't. But that doesn't reflect "the current state of affairs" in Singapore, does it? Far from it. About 5% of the budget goes to defence, and 3% to education, and next is transport, and then healthcare (I vaguely remember based on data I self-calculated several years ago because the government doesn't release it in %, obfuscating things as usual). Very little is spent on healthcare, really.
In the past 10 years, hospitals beds have barely increased, while we faced an in-surge of immigrants (5.2 million today, 4.2 million ten years ago). Healthcare spending isn't increasing even when prices are driven up and purchasing power eroded by inflation (due to intense immigration), and income inequality continues to rise. That translates to falling healthcare (and other) standards for most people.
Singaporeans are not trying to "move further away from what was previously balanced" - they're struggling to keep aloat the tide of rising inbalance.
That's an overly simplistic way of framing the issue - a false dichotomy. In reality, people would weight the "right to property" more heavily against some of those (e.g. environmental issues, undergraduate education maybe?) and less heavily against others (healthcare) - and to varying degrees in different circumstances for each.... ...
Yes that's an important point to make (precisely what Donald Low wrote recently in response to Vikram Nair's response to Chen Show Mao. http://exchersonesusaurea.blogspot.com/2012/03/chen-show-mao-on-public-economics.html).
But that statement you quoted was me summarising (one of) angry doc's views so far. He was rather clear that he didn't want his tax money spent saving a child from leukemia (among other things) wasn't he?
And to respond to the fact that we face a web of potentially contradictory principles and issues - we can attempt resolving such a web by assigning varying weights to varying "domains" or "issues", to prioritise them. I'm not sure how much angry doc prioritises other things, but I think he's expressed how he feels about the relative weights of right to property vs right to healthcare. I'm just crystallizing his thoughts - to help him and other readers untangle their webs.
Generally speaking, the same amount of aggregate revenue can be raised using a flat 20% rate.
Flat % tax isn't "fair" in absolute terms. I wonder if angry doc minds paying the same percentage instead of the same amount.
It's probably hard for you to imagine, but in 2000 12.6% of households earned less than SG$1000 (US$800) per month. That figure is probably rather larger now. You could tax them 20% - and what would they be left with? There're already other regressive taxes to contend with (GST and CPF).
But actually, taxing 20, or 30, or 40% flat tax is fine - so long as somehow - the country can on the whole provide these people a decent existence - enough nutrition, shelter, social mobility for their children.
@angry doc
GST isn't to tax people's spending - it's to reduce tax evasion (and attendant benefits e.g. reduced administration costs catching it). It's easy to fake income, but rather hard to fake consumption. Is it moral enough now?
In fact - it works like a flat % tax (you're taxed the same % no matter how much you earn) - you should be a fan instead!
CPF is even better - the more you earn, the more CPF you pay, the more social benefits accrue to you! (CPF, although described as "enforced savings", basically functions like a tax that is used to fund healthcare, housing, education, and retirement. If you pay $1000 CPF per month you get $1000 of social benefits per month - if you pay $50 you only get $50! Song bo!)
Hope I've made you feel better about the tax situation. :-)
Hello again Melbourne
I went through this too quickly... so I didn't really give this the attention it deserved.
It's not as easy as saying, oh, we don't have enough to fund something important like education or healthcare, so we'll have to tax people more.
You have to examine the reasons for the shortfall, and whether other measures could be introduced - more efficient spending, cutting back on less important programs.
For example, the left-wing Labor government here will be politically destroyed at the next elections, partly because they spent so much pandering to green causes that they ran out of money for education.
It really annoys me that most people (and politicians) immediately turn to tax hikes by default, simply because they are politically expedient.
What you say here resonates with me - it's not a matter of tax hikes, and neither is it a matter of tax cuts (if you're inclined the opposite direction). Which has made up a lot of the argument here.
I did try to suggest (in my very first post) that actual policies mattered more than just absolute spending (as well as advocating government regulation vs the free market's invisible hand). C.f. http://prospect.org/article/health-nations
I also suggested a look at the bigger picture, and asked why didn't we discuss cutting defence spending (my view is we're just fueling the regional arms race; not surprising though - look at how many former generals are in the Cabinet) or relooking education subsidies to citizens vs foreigners i.e. how we allocate the education budget (again you've got to know the picture here, Singapore tends to spend like 1st world countries such as Australia on foreign students, but we fund our own citizens like Singapore, i.e. very little) - because like you said - this kind of analysis is precisely what it's about.
If you really asked me which were the most serious problems - I wouldn't say it were healthcare, in fact. Most important of all:
1. Fusion of executive, judicial and legislative powers within the PAP (oh I'm so gonna get sued for this). Leading to lack of checks and balances, lack of accountability and transparency. They've even co-opted the traditional media (if it weren't for the internet - you would never be able to read comments like mine in the public sphere).
2. Lack of civil society, think tanks, alternative analyses - this stems from decades of (1). The PAP has a monopoly on data and analysis - and they're not releasing anything, not even today... Oops - I am digressing too much. Well. Pardon my not leaving a return address. I can't afford a defamation suit the establishment is bound to win.
I agree with your view on CPF - it functions like a "personal tax"; but then it is not the only tax in operation here.
"GST isn't to tax people's spending - it's to reduce tax evasion"
It may be meant to reduce tax evasion, but what it does is to tax spending.
Hello eremarf,
Don't have much time, so I'll try to be brief.
Yes, the current situation in Singapore isn't exactly balanced. I did mention that Singapore is another ball game. Just sharing what it's like to live in a "liberal" society, the likes of which so many Singaporeans seem to be clamouring for these days..
Moderate liberals like you are as rare as hen's teeth - which is part of what spurred me to write that response to angrydoc in the first place. The other half of it is the problem you have raised - the lack of civil society, think tanks, alternative viewpoints.
My contribution here is to point out is that far from improving the situation, currently the "alternative media" (TOC and the like) are actually aggravating things.
These guys don't provide balanced and detailed commentary - which probably explains, as you've noticed, why most of the previous discussion was basically "tax the rich, rich people bad, tax hikes good." They don't examine the nuances and reasons why policies are askew. And they definitely don't offer feasible alternatives. Instead they push a very aggressive liberal line, even in the face of rudimentary logic, which basically is designed to feed on the latent anger of certain sections of society. Every conflict is politicized, no matter how small, and used as fodder to stoke this anger.
Basically they are hijacking the current national anger to further their own agenda.
A good example:
- Advocating the nationalisation of SMRT, probably on ideological grounds, without understanding the reasons for privatization in the first place, and more importantly, how this ties into the larger strategy to grow Singapore's economy. Not a single liberal website has even scratched the surface of this.
Skim through the comments on this post and see how many fit the cookie-cutter mould. Basically you have a few more prominent personalities like Donald Low and a couple of other wannabes. The rest of the blogsphere is comprised of sheep. Ironically enough, groupthink at its finest.
So I can understand where angrydoc is coming from with his talk of rhetoric and class warfare. And that struck a nerve.
The root cause is the immaturity of Singaporean society. What can be done about it? I don't know.
But what these "liberals" are currently doing will damage this society greatly. That's the long and short of it.
'But actually, taxing 20, or 30, or 40% flat tax is fine...'
40%? i hope that was a joke. :P what about taxing people roughly equivalent amounts, in the province of a few hundred dollars or so? (sorry, i have no idea how much taxes the top 11% pay.)
it puts the onus on the government to cut spending and improve financial efficiency. :)
http://www.yoursdp.org/files/sdp-national-healthcare-plan.pdf
Healthcare is a basic right as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and other similar covenants. It is not a commodity, and we believe that market forces
have no part to play in the financing or delivery of basic healthcare to the people in
our country.
@Melbourne
Long time no see - I checked back here, ironically - after wanting to link this page to TRE (our so-called extremist liberal friends).
I think maybe you would agree, if I re-express your idea as: extremists, fundamentalists, e.g. religious fundamentalists, free market fundamentalists, communists, extremist liberals, extremist conservatives, etc., i.e. people who believe in just one idea, and refuse to budge from there - are detrimental to society.
There is nothing really wrong with all the "-isms". What's wrong is people being so so ideologically extreme, that they make decisions (if we can even call it that) simplistically based on ideology, rather than reasoning.
Maybe some support for that is: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3033/are-blue-states-smarter-than-red-states, where we find that it is the states with higher average IQs that swing between red and blue - rather than doggedly sticking to one.
You're right that TOC and TRE are full of extremists (though not EVERYONE there is one). They are there saying those things because there're always going to be some people like that (simple-minded and gullible people), and because Singapore's education system and social conditions did and still do not encourage people to think hard and critically, or to empathise with others (or to have a strong enough sense of community identity), etc. It in fact, does the opposite, encourages rote procedure (i.e. simplified understanding of how things work), unquestioning obedience, selfish and NIMBY mentalities, etc.
But that's not unchangeable.
We can improve education (at school and out of school), for children and for adults. (But more for children, because adults are not as malleable - which is why change will take time, because it takes a village to raise a child. And so we need to fix the village first. But today we can only fix (imperfectly) next generation's village.)
People with power and influence can take the lead and live lives oriented around values other than exhibition and accumulation of material wealth.
We can break social immobility - because it breeds inter-generational inequality - which then breeds particular social values and attitudes towards (different segments/classes of) society.
Etc, etc.
We need to, as much as possible, empower members of our society to think critically, to hold "Good" values (which is where angrydoc and I perhaps differ), and to act for them.
At least to me - those are the things we can do to improve Singapore. And the first step towards achieving that - is to implement political change - to break the PAP's stranglehold on power, to liberate the media, to change the way we educate our children.
Which is why, at this point in time - I would support the extremist liberals - because they are the means to political change - which is what Singapore really needs. (I'm not ruling out the possibility of political change in the form of a renewed PAP which is no longer [unspeakable accusations]. That might well be enough to put Singapore on track towards progress again.)
(But you're right of course - even as I type this - I know that if I were to present this argument - to take actions with a view towards bringing about political change to ultimately create a self-sustaining, self-piloting society, and not instead just based on simplistic, fixed ideological goals - that very few would understand or agree with me.)
@jun - that comment of mine "But actually, taxing 20, or 30, or 40% flat tax is fine..."
Well, the context is - I'm declaring that I don't mind living in a society where people pay 40% flat tax, but still manage to maintain their dignity (no poverty, access to good quality education, healthcare, social support, etc).
I'm not sure if we start to encounter diminishing returns at such a high % though. The thing is - we should only tax people to create public funds, to create public goods that will otherwise not be created by the free market alone. At 40% flat tax - we might have more public money than is really needed to fund public goods, and if tax money is mis-used, or inefficiently used, we might as well not tax it.
The real thrust of my comment, in a nutshell, is not about what's the tax rate, or whether it's regressive or flat or progressive. What REALLY matters is whether people can live with human rights and dignity.
Post a Comment