Informative, she's quite neutral, but on sensitive issues, she's quite defensive.
First she talks about 3G - Globalization, Gap (widening income gap) and GST.
GlobalizationFirst, she acknowledges that globalization has been around all the time. Westerners moved to Asia to look for spices, raw materials, etc. Easterners moved around the globe to look for better opportunities. That's the past.
In today's world, it's in the sense of culture, information. Culture as in globalization opens up lots of opportunities, bringing in people from different countries and their cultures. In terms of information, we are exchanging more information than ever via the Internet.
GapWith globalization, it not only opens up the world of opportunities to us, but also to the world. MNCs relocate their production centres to cheaper countries such as India and China, tap on top local talent to manage the regional activities.
This forces manual, labour-intensive jobs salaries to go lower as China and India counterparts can do more with lesser pay. But this is the reverse for local talents. MNCs hire them because we know the region well, can speak English and are hardworking. This pushes their salaries up, which causes the widening incoming gap.
GSTThis part is interesting and I almost got brainwashed.
She talks about how GST is linked to globalization. You will never realize this link. It's got to do with corporate taxes. Due to globalization, the world has become a more competitive place to live in. To attract companies here, we have to lower corporate taxes.
However, lower corporate taxes means lesser revenue. So where do they make it up? GST.
This is where I nearly fell for the trap. I was there thinking, if something goes down, something must go up. I agreed with her.
But the more she goes on, the more I disagree. The Q&A session actually reveals why they increase the GST, thanks to one student who quoted a 13th century economic theory.
The theory goes something like this: if increased taxes affects necessities, it will reduce revenues as citizens won't be motivated to spend. (I think so, I don't understand what the heck the student is saying, he's stumbling over his words)
And our dear minister's answer:
Reduced taxes doesn't mean increased revenues. Rather, it means a reduction in budget. Take for example corporate taxes. From 35% to 30%, it's a 5% drop, which is a lot, considering that corporations do earn a decent amount.
Now, how does the GST impact? Consider a worker earning $5000. The GST increase probably only reduced his monthly savings. At the most, his spendings will eat into his savings.
Now look at a worker who earns $1000. Already, he doesn't have much savings, he has to tighten his budget and spend within the $1000 he earns. With GST help package, it actually gives $300 to $400 to his monthly spendings. (I'm very confused on this part, don't ask me)
From the above two paragraphs, it seems like the government has made a very bad assumption, it assumes that citizens will still spend as usual.
Continued in the next post...