By Benedict Chong
Governments tend to believe that they have at their disposal tools and mechanisms that will help them manage income inequality. Some of these include elaborate policies and schemes for taxes and subsequently transferring these back to the needy of society.
These mechanisms are often cited by the Singapore government, the opposition and more recently, by protesters at Hong Lim Park. The protest held on 27 September, better known for its controversial march that intruded a YMCA charity event, also saw speakers bring up some of these policies and schemes, in the quest of improving them.
This article will examine some of the solutions the speakers claim will solve inequality, vis-à-vis some of the current schemes that the State has employed for that same purpose. (Video recordings of the points made by the protesters are also available online.)  But do such measures really work?
Minimum wage
Minimum_Wage_IncreaseOne of the most important and prevalent proposals to bridge the income gap is to implement a minimum wage. In Singapore, a minimum wage is one of the cornerstone policies of the Worker’s Party and apparently the Hong Lim Park speakers as well.
While most economists believe that higher prices decrease consumption, they also conveniently ignore the fact that labour markets work the same way as the goods and services market.
Legislated increases in wages above productivity levels would ultimately result in either unemployment or higher costs which will be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. With inflation rising, pressure to increase the minimum wage also increases, starting a vicious cycle of continuously increasing prices and legislated wages which do nothing except harm economic competitiveness.
An ‘open door’ immigration policy instituted by the State should theoretically have led to lower prices to accompany lower wage rates in Singapore. Unfortunately, this is not the case with skyrocketing property prices, escalating food costs and increasing public transportation fees.  And this can only be due to government intervention. For example, worker levies increase the real cost of supposedly cheaper labour, with the difference going into State coffers instead of benefitting the consumer in the form of lower prices.
A minimum wage is thus not an answer to income inequality. Its implementation will only worsen inequality as unemployment soars in response to higher labour costs. While enforcing a floor on labour costs may be a populist stand by blogger Roy Ngerng and the Worker’s Party, it will eventually be self-defeating and counterproductive.
Transfer payments and welfare spending
no free lunchIn another segment of his speech, Ngerng reasoned that the government should take care of its citizens because we pay taxes. He listed examples which included GST, currently at 7%.
But the premise here is that government is expected to levy taxes on the population. And that is just quite simply erroneous. Governments always give populist reasons for unpopular policies and prior to implementing GST, the State declared that the extra revenue was for social spending.
However, GST is a regressive tax which harms the poor. The official standpoint is that the rich tend to pay more in GST because they purchase big ticketed items such as yachts, Swiss made watches, and other luxury items. But how many of these luxury items can the wealthy purchase? On the other hand, the poor have to spend on food, water, clothing and other basic necessities every day, raising an already high cost of living.
Of course, the government will point out how GST rebates are being distributed as a form of transfer payments. Yet, if these rebates are going to the poor and middle class, what is the rationale for GST, especially with all its inflationary pressures? After all, the middle class usually contribute the majority of such taxes.
Another policy practiced by Singapore is a progressive or graduated tax system. This system aims to increase the tax burden on the wealthy given that people in lower income brackets pay lower or no taxes. But there are several problems with this system. Because this policy taxes nominal and not real income, a rise in income levels lower than that of inflation may result in the arbitrary individual paying more taxes and causing a decrease in his disposable income.
This is especially true in a country as susceptible to inflation as Singapore. In addition, a study in US has shown that this ‘redistribution’ process only distributes 30 cents of every dollar appropriated to the intended recipients. Contrast this statistic to private charities where 70% of all donations tend to go directly into programs championed by the organisation and the argument for State welfare programs becomes a nonstarter.
Milton Friedman once said that “any reason to reduce taxes is a good reason”. Unfortunately, we seldom see tax decreases with talk of a possible third increase in GST rates even being considered. The State is inherently inefficient due to its bureaucratic nature and paying even more taxes will only serve to subsidise ever more wastage.
Simplifying tax, reducing bureaucracy
The solution here would be to implement a flat tax rate and eliminate GST altogether. The implementation of a flat tax would ensure that everyone pays the same tax rate while avoiding the pitfalls of climbing up tax brackets. It will ensure a fair and equitable system for everyone as recited in the Singapore pledge without unfair treatment of the more productive. Eliminating GST as a regressive tax will reduce the tax burden borne by the poor and middle class.
The registrar of charities should also be closed with the humanitarian sector in Singapore liberalised, reducing the red tape preventing such organisations from doing what they do best – helping those in need. The competition for donor dollars would encourage more transparency and accountability. This will largely avert the possibility of the financial irregularities that plagued NKF and RenCi in recent years.
Other than the provision of the most basic of infrastructure such as the rule of law and incorruptibility of leaders holding political office, all the State has to do is stay out of market functions and let the economy run its course. Unfortunately, that is becoming an increasingly difficult task with needless rules and regulations being introduced to reign in apparent economic ‘excesses’.
Very often, all that is necessary to lift the general welfare of the people is to eliminate all regulatory barriers to entry into the economy. Governments have never created prosperity through the use of active legislation. Singapore achieved first world status because the State mostly stayed out of the way while foreign MNCs operated or invested in the country. Starting from a low base, it is only expected that Singapore would achieve high economic growth, with or without the PAP, in the presence of the rule of law.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

AGO: MOM purchases 432k computer system and left it unused

In its audit report for Financial Year 2015/2016 published on 26 July,…

私人聚会谈话录音曝光 林郑月娥澄清未向中国政府请辞

昨日路透社在其新闻网站和推特,分享一段录音,录音中疑似香港特首林郑月娥,在一项闭门活动中发表谈话,指她自己引发政治危机,令香港陷入“不可原谅的混乱局势”,如果她能选择,将会辞职下台。不过后者在今早重申,从未向北京提出辞呈。 该社声称这是林郑在上周与商界人士会面,该社独家取得她谈话的录音内容。 根据谈话内容,林郑月娥似乎语带哽咽,认为作为特首为香港带来巨大破坏,是不可原谅的,如果可以选择他要做的第一件事,是深深道歉并下台。 录音中他又指出中国政府方面并没有设下限期,并知道香港当前局势仍会持续,北京和香港政府不指望能在10月1日中国国庆前解决问题。活动也可能有许多干扰,所以香港会进行一场规模较小但庄严的庆祝活动。 称中国政府无计划派军入港 但她也重申,中国政府没有计划派解放军入港。 她续指,根据香港宪法,港特首同时需要为中央政府和香港人服务,故此特首的政治斡旋空间非常有限;而中国政府注重国家国际形象,但在现如今未有短期解决方案下可以也不介意打“持久战”(play it long ),“但一切尘埃落定后,国家还会伸出援手,可能有些积极措施,如在香港大湾区。” 林郑月娥也分享,个人方面面对许多不便,没办法去逛商场、去发廊理发,因为她的行踪会在社交媒体被广传,还有黑衣年轻人等着她。 对此,林郑月娥在今早记者会上,表示对于私人聚会谈话内容泄露,感到失望,也澄清自己当时是以非官方身份发言。…

PA launched Silver WaVe initiative to engage senior citizens to be more active

People’s Association aims to take 1,000 senior citizens into water sports yearly,…

浪费空间!国大建筑客座教授非议有盖走道设计

新加坡国立大学建筑系客座教授郑庆顺,周日(13日)在脸书发文非议我国一些有盖人行道的设计。他在贴文分享照片,指某有盖走道至少一米的空间没有被善用,是“糟糕的设计”。 “如果能够将柱子安放在挡土墙的顶端,并将排水沟覆盖上,人行道的宽度会更宽,而且成本反而更低。” 在发文的数分钟后,郑庆顺再次上传另一张不同的人行道照片,更指该人行道的设计比起上一张更适合。 “这个设计更好,有更多的空间,柱子在边缘以此去掉笨拙的基础建设。”他表示。 另一方面,脸书专页《Singaporeans supporting the government because of covered walkways”》也分享了郑庆顺的帖文,揶揄行人道的糟糕设计。…