PM: Nordic model won't work for growth in S'pore
-
PM: Nordic model won't work for growth in S'pore
Differences in culture, society mean outcomes unlikely to be the same
By LESLIE KOH
ASSISTANT POLITICAL EDITOR
AS PUBLIC debate continues over what growth policies Singapore should pursue, one model that keeps coming up is the Scandinavian example.Economists and social experts have repeatedly cited the Nordic experience, noting how egalitarian systems and pro-family policies have helped countries like like Norway and Sweden achieve high growth, high birth rates and generous welfare, all at the same time.
Last night, however, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong explained why Singapore could not do the same thing.
Basic differences in culture, society and environment, he said, made it difficult for the Republic to achieve the same outcomes.
"There is indeed much we can and should learn from the Scandinavian societies, such as their pro-family policies and their success in nurturing global companies," he said.
"But there are basic differences between Singapore and Scandinavia, in our strategic situations and our approaches to growth and equity."
Essentially, it came down to one fundamental choice: Low taxes and targeted welfare benefits - as Singapore has - or high taxes and comprehensive welfare.
"You can have one or the other, cannot mix and match," observed Mr Lee, at a dinner for the Economic Society of Singapore.
Nordic nations, he noted, had natural resources, a rich hinterland in Europe, and long histories as homogeneous societies which were willing to pay high taxes for high social protection.
"I do not believe tnat Singaporeans would he willing to pay the taxes that Scandinavians pay, or that our economy could be competitive at such heavy tax rates," said Mr Lee. He acknowledged that Singapore could raise its social spending as well as taxes "moderately" - in fact, it was exactly what the country needed to do in the long term, with its population ageing and health-care needs growing.
"But the limits are tighter than many people realise," he added.
Raising income tax rates, he noted, could affect Singapore's competitiveness in the region.
He nevertheless promised to keep strengthening social safety nets here, but also warned that this would cost more - and ultimately, mean higher taxes.
Said PM Lee: "At some point - not in this term of government, but surely within the next 20 years - the government will need new sources of revenue, which means raising taxes.
"I hope that when this becomes necessary, the government of the day will have the courage to do so, and the electorate will understand why it is in everyone's interests that we do so."
Otherwise, Mr Lee added, Singapore could face problems seen in parts of Europe, where citizens have resisted higher taxes but want to keep high welfare levels.
He said: "We are a long way from that, but still we must proceed very carefully, because benefits once given can never be taken away... Spending is popular, but raising money to pay for it is not. One wins votes, one loses votes."
Top Of The News, The Straits Times, Saturday, June 9 2012, Pg A10
-
We need to be cheaper better and faster.
And import more people to grow gdp.
-
coz nordic model dun pay them as high
-
Originally posted by lce:
coz nordic model dun pay them as high
-
Of course different in cultures la. We don't even have the same govt. The culture created here by the government is making Singapore a non welfare state and the govt taking advantage to turn a country like a profit making organisation, MAKE MONEY MONEY MONEY MONEY out of the people to fatten their pockets. They don't or care less for the welfare of the people in the country. Damn lee hsien loong! Times has been bad since he become PM.
-
Since when he care about the people ?
Only dumb people still believe him after he have done some much fix on the people who paid for his salary and bonus.
-
PM: Nordic model won't work for growth in S'pore
you never try how the fuck you know? don't come talk fucking cock.
-
The nordic model requires high pay and high tax. It'll be very taxing on employers.
Although their living standards are comparatively higher, the prices of houses are still affordable to most people.
-
Source: http://finance.ninemsn.com.au/newsbusiness/8446427/in-denmark-buy-a-house-and-get-a-car-free
Buy a house before May 1 and get a new car for free: an estate agency is hoping to attract buyers to Denmark's slumping housing market with the unusually generous offer.
-
Originally posted by dangerboi:
The nordic model requires high pay and high tax. It'll be very taxing on employers.
He didn't even mention about progressive tax. Just talk cock about high taxes "for all".
-
Originally posted by M the name:
Raising income tax rates, he noted, could affect Singapore's competitiveness in the region.
Top Of The News, The Straits Times, Saturday, June 9 2012, Pg A10
Competition.. Compete..competitiveness..
-
Originally posted by Dalforce 1941:
He didn't even mention about progressive tax. Just talk cock about high taxes "for all".
You're right.
-
I really tak boleh tahan when these people keep looking at western models for this and that. can't we come up with a system that is good for all Singaporeans? For government subsidized hospitals there should be perhaps only two kinds of classes; 25% Fully paid wards and all others subsidised wards.. For the fully paid wards you pay full charges for class A and class B So this will cater for foreigners as well as those well heeled who want some extra frills in service quality. The rest of the 75% of the hospital should be simply classless with cordon off areas or rooms for those who are in critical state , dying , or infectious. Those patients who are aged 70 and above with no children or family support should be subsidize fully if their Meidsave /medicare balances are belowS$5,000/-
-
Increase GST like other countries so that we can help the poor more.
-
Is it too difficult to imagine what will happen when cleaners are paid S$5,502 per month?
How many cheap landed house with a garden can there be in Singapore? And the distance between one house and the next must be at least a kilometer.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
Increase GST like other countries so that we can help the poor more.
Other countries have exemption for basic staples, books and medication.
PAP decides to tax everything because rich folks eat basic staples, go to school and get sick too.
So 9 poor people pay same GST for staples just like the 1 rich person.
You can't get fairer than that.
-
Why Nordic model won't work in Singapore?
Singapore's worker base is cheap labour from China, India, Philippines, Indonesia, Myanmar, Bangladesh, etc. How much technological advancement can you achieve with these cheap labour?
It's because LHL and his predecessors all pursue a low cost policy (cheaper, better, faster) for Singapore's model.
How to compete with high technological model of the Nordic?
-
How to become the next Nokia when they want more Singaporeans to become hawkers?
-
If having two CASINOES in Singapore and we still can't find a good way of chanelling the revenue from them to give our citizens a " financial worry free old age medical care" for those who need it , then the system is real hopeless!
-
Originally posted by Bikeforceful:
If having two CASINOES in Singapore and we still can’t find a good way of chanelling the revenue from them to give our citizens a � financial worry free old age medical care� for those who need it , then the system is real hopeless!
the revenue generated by singapore pools alone is enough to help most citizens in need. and frankly who will complain if they do that? its not from taxes but from gamblers. but then we all know the teaching philosophy in this country - there is no free lunch!!! -
The case for doing it the NORDIC WAY
Even on the global stage, there is a lot of talk about the benefits of the 'Nordic' model of society. Is that because of hard facts or because of soft values? Is it because of a belief in the importance of solidarity and inclusion in a society? As a businessman and financier, DANIEL SACHS asks: Does the Nordic model make good economic sense?
THE Nordic model leads to one great benefit: It promotes adaptability and openness to change. And since the times we are living in are a-changin', this quality has enormous economic value.
Swedish taxes are not much higher these days than in the rest of Europe, but state spending is highly efficient when it comes to the redistribution effects.
Openness to change is a core aspect of the competitiveness of the Nordic economies. In fact, adaptability is even more important in small, open, export-oriented economies such as Sweden.
Let me get one thing out of the way: As a businessman, I believe in incentives. People have to have incentives in order to strive for development, innovation, growth and wealth.
But what the Nordic experience shows is that "individual" incentives can be soundly balanced by solidarity on a "societal" level. Solidarity makes good economic sense. Solidarity - that is, risksharing - is a key ingredient in being open to change.
I realise that this insight flies in the face of what many Americans believe. But they no longer "own" the openness-to-change idea. In fact, in one of the more puzzling developments of this era, the ability of US society to absorb change has slowed down tremendously.
In the US debate, the key charge raised against the Nordic model is that the level of taxation - and hence the state share of GDP - is very high. But, befuddling Americans, economic growth in Scandinavia is robust and unemployment is lower than in most other European countries.
Like the Americans, we Scandinavians believe that openness to change is very important, yet we go about it precisely in the opposite manner: Ours is not a strategy to minimise taxation.
Why are we ready to put up with a higher level of taxes? Is it because I like living in a society that puts a strong emphasis on equality of opportunity? Is it because I like living in a society that has strong social cohesion and fairness, an open society where everyone has the right to free health care and schooling?
Is it because I enjoy the fact that, in spite of a certain prosperity, I cannot buy better schooling for my kids or better health care than someone with fewer means at his disposal? Or is it because it benefits my business?
Inequality is not only unfair to those at the bottom of the economy, it is also unsustainable and very risky for those at the top.
The answer is "all of the above" - and this flows from how the relationship between openness and risk-sharing works. The "haves" share their personal gains with the "have-nots" through taxes that finance comprehensive benefits.
In that context, it is important to note that Swedish taxes are really not so much higher these days than in the rest of Europe, but state spending is highly efficient when it comes to the redistribution effects.
In Sweden, the idea is that the economically well-off pay enough taxes so that the economically not-so-well-off can support themselves. The employed pay enough taxes so that the unemployed can support themselves.Our ambition is not only to provide a safety net if a citizen stumbles because of a job loss, but also to invest in human capital so that the citizen is less likely to fall - to invest in making individuals successful actors in a modern and globalised society.
To realise that very practical vision, the already-educated and established pay enough taxes so that the under-educated can get educated. This risk-sharing mechanism may sound abstract, but the pivotal question is what kind of behaviour it fosters.
Our "individual investment society", as it is sometimes called, together with a clear sense that if people fail they will be taken care of, leads to a greater willingness to take risk and therefore a greater openness to structural change on a society-wide basis.
The citizens of Nordic countries are among the most pro-globalisation in the world. Why? When comparing with larger European countries, which have had, at least historically, large home markets, the Nordic states are small open economies that have been dependent on trade for many decades. (A country outside the region that fits this general mould is Israel).
Openness to globalisation also means openness to disruptive change. Structural change is rapid, industries decline and new ones emerge and people lose their jobs.
High trust allows for diversity, which also has great economic value in times like these, when we need more migration and a growing labour force.
Nordic countries have stayed open and positive to globalisation because free trade policies have gone hand in hand with collective mechanisms for risk-sharing.
Tax receipts are used to promote flexibility and the winners from structural transformation compensate the losers. That is not the case in the United States, where the case for continued openness is being put under increasingly greater strain.
Not only are the Nordic countries among the most positive to globalisation, but one could also argue that they have handled the globalisation era more successfully than most other Western countries. Competitiveness has been strengthened because necessary structural changes - pension reform, industrial adaptation, deregulation - have been widely supported by the people and carried out at an early stage.
I would also argue that the adaptation to globalisation has been less painful in Sweden than in many other Western countries, for the reason that the gains from globalisation have been reasonably widely distributed. Because of our tax policies, we don't end up with a small universe of "winners" and a large group of "losers".
The importance of trust
SWEDEN'S wide distribution of economic benefits also helps create social cohesion. There is a clear sense that we are in this together, that we share the benefits and also the burdens. In turbulent times, this has very clear value.
Let's take the Greek example as a contrast. The Greeks have taken to the streets because they feel that the burdens of the economic crisis are being shared unevenly. Unlike the country's economic and political elites, the population as a whole never reaped the benefits from globalisation or from European integration.
But now, it is the people who are expected to carry a disproportionate share of the burdens of the crisis. This has further eroded Greeks' trust in their government and weakened social cohesion. As a result, the crisis risks exposing Greece's entire social structure to upheaval, to extremism and potentially to revolution.
A byproduct of Greece's state of affairs is that the country's well-established and well-off can no longer exist in splendid isolation as they did in the past. Inequality is not only unfair to those at the bottom of the economy, it is also unsustainable and very risky for those at the top.
Trust is really the key word here. Surveys show that the Nordic societies are very high on trust - both between individuals and between individuals and institutions and the state.
In a society with lower levels of trust, an individual may be inclined to deal mostly, with like minded people in order to feel safe. High levels of trust - as in Swedish society - means we can feel safe with people regardless of whether they are like us or not.
High trust therefore allows for diversity, which also has great economic value in times like these, when we need more migration and a growing labour force.
The economic benefits
THESE aspects of the Nordic model - the relationship between state and individual, generous social protection, freedom of the individual and high levels of trust - all help foster risk-taking and openness to change.
But the other reason why I, as a businessman, like the Nordic model is that high levels of trust, fairness and transparency also mean that transaction costs are low. Corruption is low.
Agreements can be kept short and relatively uncomplicated, information about the people one is dealing with is in the public domain, and the rich and powerful are closely scrutinised by the media. By contrast, transaction costs are high in the US system.
While it is difficult to judge the benefits of different models of society in different times, it is clear from current political, social and economic developments that inequality is both risky and costly.
So there are important lessons to be learnt from a model of society that has been able - at least historically - to combine a generous welfare system with an open and market-oriented economy.
GLOBALIST PERSPECTIVE
Part D, The Straits Times, Saturday, June 9 2012, Pg D7
-
It used to be years back that they were sending Sg ministers to go to these nordic countries to study how Sg could adopt their practices.
Suddenly, the floodgates opened and it became cheaper better faster.
Haiz.
-
what happened to the swiss standard of living?
-
Originally posted by GHoST_18:
what happened to the swiss standard of living?
Already reached that standard.
Now we are trying to reverse it.
-
.