About time! Join the privileged fewmalcontent wrote: ↑Thu, 27 Apr 2023 11:06 amThat is just mind boggling… 60% !
Maybe I need to go hunting… I have no properties in my name and am eligible for 0%.
Even though the differential (or "savings") has widened, it's not like you can buy something that's worth $1.60 for $1.00 (and previously it was worth $1.30 for $1.00 so bigger discount today). Marginally, they keep taking more and more buyers out of the market, although certain groups and funds keep flowing here (for obvious reasons). From that standpoint, it's less favourable today vs. yesterday (on this factor only).malcontent wrote: ↑Thu, 27 Apr 2023 11:06 amThat is just mind boggling… 60% !
Maybe I need to go hunting… I have no properties in my name and am eligible for 0%.
Yes, you’ve hit all the right points. ABSD is not like a COE where you can get some residual value back - this is just a tax, and once paid it’s poof gone, and anyone that pays 60% faces a long road if they ever hope to recover that cost through price appreciation.NYY1 wrote: ↑Thu, 27 Apr 2023 7:43 pmEven though the differential (or "savings") has widened, it's not like you can buy something that's worth $1.60 for $1.00 (and previously it was worth $1.30 for $1.00 so bigger discount today). Marginally, they keep taking more and more buyers out of the market, although certain groups and funds keep flowing here (for obvious reasons). From that standpoint, it's less favourable today vs. yesterday (on this factor only).malcontent wrote: ↑Thu, 27 Apr 2023 11:06 amThat is just mind boggling… 60% !
Maybe I need to go hunting… I have no properties in my name and am eligible for 0%.
Unless you just think something that is artificially suppressed must eventually return to its natural state. Not untrue, although one needs to consider the environment in which ABSD (the restriction) is reversed or lifted.
My thoughts exactly, 60% is absolutely crazy! I don't think even the richest of the rich would be willing to pay that. It's financially imprudent.malcontent wrote: ↑Thu, 27 Apr 2023 11:06 amThat is just mind boggling… 60% !
Maybe I need to go hunting… I have no properties in my name and am eligible for 0%.
Perhaps I don't understand the mindset of the ultra wealthy, but I can't imagine anyone on earth being willing to pay that much. Especially considering the fact that if you're rich enough to own that many properties, it's not going to be a cheap one.
Agree, it's definitely to increase tax rev, though I appreciate that they are going about it this way so as not to affect the majority.PNGMK wrote: ↑Thu, 27 Apr 2023 9:39 pmThe harsh reality is that the Singpore govt is facing a fiscal cliff. While this is disguised as a populist housing excercise it is ultimately a tax revenue exercise. The even increasing income tax rates, PARF rates and other levies indicate a govt worried about maintaining a balanced budget.
Right, in order to recover that you would have to sell the house for at least double its market value, which I don't see happening.malcontent wrote: ↑Thu, 27 Apr 2023 9:33 pmYes, you’ve hit all the right points. ABSD is not like a COE where you can get some residual value back - this is just a tax, and once paid it’s poof gone, and anyone that pays 60% faces a long road if they ever hope to recover that cost through price appreciation.NYY1 wrote: ↑Thu, 27 Apr 2023 7:43 pmEven though the differential (or "savings") has widened, it's not like you can buy something that's worth $1.60 for $1.00 (and previously it was worth $1.30 for $1.00 so bigger discount today). Marginally, they keep taking more and more buyers out of the market, although certain groups and funds keep flowing here (for obvious reasons). From that standpoint, it's less favourable today vs. yesterday (on this factor only).malcontent wrote: ↑Thu, 27 Apr 2023 11:06 amThat is just mind boggling… 60% !
Maybe I need to go hunting… I have no properties in my name and am eligible for 0%.
Unless you just think something that is artificially suppressed must eventually return to its natural state. Not untrue, although one needs to consider the environment in which ABSD (the restriction) is reversed or lifted.
Just imagine shelling out $1m in ABSD on a $1.67m property… you are paying over $2.67m but getting a $1.67m home. That is some sick and twisted shiznet right there. Who in their right mind is gonna do that? For that kind of money you can access a top notch CBI scheme like Malta and get EU citizenship for life.
The fiscal cliff is caused by a demographic cliff. They've tried to fix that for almost 30 years now to no effect.Lisafuller wrote: ↑Thu, 27 Apr 2023 10:26 pmAgree, it's definitely to increase tax rev, though I appreciate that they are going about it this way so as not to affect the majority.PNGMK wrote: ↑Thu, 27 Apr 2023 9:39 pmThe harsh reality is that the Singpore govt is facing a fiscal cliff. While this is disguised as a populist housing excercise it is ultimately a tax revenue exercise. The even increasing income tax rates, PARF rates and other levies indicate a govt worried about maintaining a balanced budget.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests