Retirement, any takers?

Very strange.
When i posted i am thinking about people blessed with health and longevity. i am thinking about most of these people have something to do even until 100 years old. The 106 years old is none other than Irving Kahn. And the author is his son Thomas Kahn.
i am thinking if you have something you like to do very much in life, most probably you will live longer and escape the dreaded visitor, Mr. Dementia.
Imagine, 106 and still "running around" in Wall Street. i can't imagine

(21-07-2013, 04:39 PM)Temperament Wrote: Very strange.
When i posted i am thinking about people blessed with health and longevity. i am thinking about most of these people have something to do even until 100 years old. The 106 years old is none other than Irving Kahn. And the author is his son Thomas Kahn.
i am thinking if you have something you like to do very much in life, most probably you will live longer and escape the dreaded visitor, Mr. Dementia.
Imagine, 106 and still "running around" in Wall Street. i can't imagine

I met one master TCM doctor in China, with over 90 years old, but still travelling around China for seminars and talks. On top of that, he is still in practice when not travel, on half day basic

I wish I am as physically and mentally fit as him, when I reach the similar age...

Not too long ago, dividends are taxable and subject to franking (everyone included - rich and poor investors). The doing away for sec 44 and the phasing in of 1 tier tax on dividends - effectively meaning that the rich who received the bulk of dividends in personal capacity don't pay taxes.

In addition, there is no longer any estate duties in Singapore. So what is this crab on taxing the rich more when once upon a time it makes great sense to put in place the present policies favouring the rich...

Always confused by some consters
GG

(21-07-2013, 04:23 PM)brattzz Wrote: "So the ultra rich stays ultra rich and even gets richer each year even with his expensive toys but most of the middle class and poor stays status quo.
that's life, in most countries its like that.
I reckon now that the richest 10% in s'pore controls 90% of the country's wealth. It used to be 80:20 before.
Thus the majority 90% of the people have only 10% of the wealth."

That's why must TAX the richest more!

(21-07-2013, 03:35 PM)paullow Wrote: A middle class earner husband and wife earning 10-15kpa might seem a lot, but after deducting various expenses, might find it a trying task even to save up a few hundred K. The money just flows out each time the pay check comes in. And most of them need to EXCHANGE THEIR TIME TO WORK FOR MONEY. People who are in this situation would know what I am talking.

You hit the nail on the head. As to Uncle Temper's thread title, I think retirement is a horrible concept- most people who've retired usually find that they fill the new-found hours with something else. It could be gardening, keeping healthy by walking or some other form of exercise or even gaining some form of employment or getting involved in charity work.

Those who are slogging away and haven't retired usually think of retirement as a phase of life where they stop working, sit back, relax and do things they enjoy. I think these people have no idea what they really want. Those who eventually get to this stage will find that they don't live very long or very well.

Therefore, I think the word 'financial freedom' is more apt. That is the freedom to spend your time as you wish without having to worry that there is not enough $$ to meet existing and future commitments.

(21-07-2013, 08:03 PM)kazukirai Wrote:

(21-07-2013, 03:35 PM)paullow Wrote: A middle class earner husband and wife earning 10-15kpa might seem a lot, but after deducting various expenses, might find it a trying task even to save up a few hundred K. The money just flows out each time the pay check comes in. And most of them need to EXCHANGE THEIR TIME TO WORK FOR MONEY. People who are in this situation would know what I am talking.

You hit the nail on the head. As to Uncle Temper's thread title, I think retirement is a horrible concept- most people who've retired usually find that they fill the new-found hours with something else. It could be gardening, keeping healthy by walking or some other form of exercise or even gaining some form of employment or getting involved in charity work.

Those who are slogging away and haven't retired usually think of retirement as a phase of life where they stop working, sit back, relax and do things they enjoy. I think these people have no idea what they really want. Those who eventually get to this stage will find that they don't live very long or very well.

Therefore, I think the word 'financial freedom' is more apt. That is the freedom to spend your time as you wish without having to worry that there is not enough $$ to meet existing and future commitments.

Well said.

When we die or how long we live god knows ah but for conversation sake if I had a chance to choose, I think the best optimum age to go is at 70. Why anybody "wish" for a life longer than that is beyond me.

Maybe by then you have many money but unlikely to have the health to enjoy it? Consider you worked and slogged like hell to make this money I dare say most of you your healths will not be in a very good condition and will have some ailment in one form or another like diabetes, high cholestrol, high blood, rheumatism, eyesight poor, loss of appetite, short attention span walk a few steps tired out easily forget about travelling.

If your condition is dire and require to be bedridden imagine living to 106 strapped to a bed what a way to go. Future singapore of 7-10 million population is going to be a highly competitive and expensive place to live it, time or lack of it will truly be money, if your relative needs to care for you means that person is losing money caring for you. So expect to be living in a home with once a year visit somewhere in JB is cheaper as the government has says.

Me I hope to go at 70 one last burst down a bottle of louis 13 and never wake up best way to go

> Maybe by then you have many money but unlikely to have the health to enjoy it?

That is why the ancient Chinese make it a point to yang sheng, do taichi, qigong. Delay ageing. Exercise regularly DO improves one's health.
The worst thing to do is keep asking for lower medical fees from doctors who are out to charge. Doctors are there to fix health problems, NOT GIVE US HEALTH.
Building immunity is the best route to health.

MOH reason that TCM is not scientific is questionable, they try to use scientific method to explain everything.

Save the money for healthcare, and use it to invest. That's the first step to draining the country's GDP on health.

(21-07-2013, 07:31 PM)greengiraffe Wrote: Not too long ago, dividends are taxable and subject to franking (everyone included - rich and poor investors). The doing away for sec 44 and the phasing in of 1 tier tax on dividends - effectively meaning that the rich who received the bulk of dividends in personal capacity don't pay taxes.

This is an incorrect analysis. Previously, the companies paid corporate tax, accruing tax credits, and then passed these credits on when they paid dividends. Thus rich people paid more taxes because they received dividends, got the tax credits, and then paid taxes based on their (high) marginal rate. Poor people got the same pro-rata dividends and tax credits, but then paid taxes based on their (lower) marginal rate.

Suppose the corporate tax rate was 22%. If a company earned $1 per share before tax, it would pay 22 cents per share in tax. It could declare a $0.78 per share dividend, and this would come with 22 cents per share of tax credit.

A high-income person in (let's say) the 20% tax bracket would receive $0.78, grossed up to $1, then pay 20 cents in tax, leaving him with $0.80.

A low-income person in (let's say) the 5% bracket would also get $1 when grossed up, but pay 5 cents in tax, leaving him with $0.95.

With the one-tier system, the companies pay corporate tax, and then pay dividends which are tax-free. Effectively, it means that EVERY shareholder is paying the corporate tax rate on his/her dividend. This is essentially a tax increase on the low-income, rather than a tax relief on the high-income.

Under the same conditions as above, the company would declare a one-tier dividend of $0.78, tax-exempt. The 2 people above would receive the same amount, $0.78. Both have seen an increase in tax, but it is much more drastic for the low-income person.

It is actually more complicated in real life because the corporate tax rate is now 17%, which means that both people being studied would get $0.83 in dividends. Compared with the old days of S44 credits, the low-income person still gets less. But the high-income person now gets MORE.

So the one-tier system combined with the lower corporate tax rate has simplified our tax system, but at the cost of increasing income inequality.

There again, you see Money and Politics can not be separated.Now i just realise my rice bowl has become less "nutritious" long time ago. i always believe GOV is made up of people; And we all know people don't just do something for nothing, for you.

---

My wife also always think it is best to go at around the age of 70. i may agree with all the folks who think so. But we all knows it is not up to us to choose naturally. It is up to God how and when we die. And all of us wish we could die at home on our bed peacefully and perhaps happily. That is considered a good death by almost all cultures; i believe.
Meanwhile as long as you are living, you have a duty to GOD and yourself and your fellowman. You have to make the best of the remainder life you have on earth.

(22-07-2013, 02:12 AM)d.o.g. Wrote:

(21-07-2013, 07:31 PM)greengiraffe Wrote: Not too long ago, dividends are taxable and subject to franking (everyone included - rich and poor investors). The doing away for sec 44 and the phasing in of 1 tier tax on dividends - effectively meaning that the rich who received the bulk of dividends in personal capacity don't pay taxes.

This is an incorrect analysis. Previously, the companies paid corporate tax, accruing tax credits, and then passed these credits on when they paid dividends. Thus rich people paid more taxes because they received dividends, got the tax credits, and then paid taxes based on their (high) marginal rate. Poor people got the same pro-rata dividends and tax credits, but then paid taxes based on their (lower) marginal rate.

Suppose the corporate tax rate was 22%. If a company earned $1 per share before tax, it would pay 22 cents per share in tax. It could declare a $0.78 per share dividend, and this would come with 22 cents per share of tax credit.

A high-income person in (let's say) the 20% tax bracket would receive $0.78, grossed up to $1, then pay 20 cents in tax, leaving him with $0.80.

A low-income person in (let's say) the 5% bracket would also get $1 when grossed up, but pay 5 cents in tax, leaving him with $0.95.

With the one-tier system, the companies pay corporate tax, and then pay dividends which are tax-free. Effectively, it means that EVERY shareholder is paying the corporate tax rate on his/her dividend. This is essentially a tax increase on the low-income, rather than a tax relief on the high-income.

Under the same conditions as above, the company would declare a one-tier dividend of $0.78, tax-exempt. The 2 people above would receive the same amount, $0.78. Both have seen an increase in tax, but it is much more drastic for the low-income person.

It is actually more complicated in real life because the corporate tax rate is now 17%, which means that both people being studied would get $0.83 in dividends. Compared with the old days of S44 credits, the low-income person still gets less. But the high-income person now gets MORE.

So the one-tier system combined with the lower corporate tax rate has simplified our tax system, but at the cost of increasing income inequality.

Thanks d.o.g. for the time in putting up this detailed post.

Personally, I fail to see how a few percentage points up/down can effect HNWI of wealth 50m upwards. Taking 5% cap gain pa, his wealth would enlarge by 2.5m pa. Plus at a conservative dividend rate of 4%, he would enjoy another 2m pa. And if he is a director or key shareholder with roles in the company, he would receive additional pay. All in all that's perhaps 5m gain PA. Take note, only the last item, he would feel the government tax ie personal income tax.
So I don't see much effect of such individuals, who in the first place don't need to exchange their precious time for their money.

The middle class is the most affected. Executives and managers who earn up to 500k pa. These are people who need to report to work everyday and exchange their time for money.
At the end of the day, still need to pay the government a significant amount of tax.
Mind you, this is his blood, sweat and tears money!
He is indirectly working for the government, like it or not!
A percentage points will affect the latter group the most.

The poor I shan't discuss further as most might have problems day to day living in the first place let alone have savings for investments.

Paul