If you transfer property, you will be still subjected to RPGT, unless you elect to use a once in a lifetime RPGT exemption.

I don't really understand what you mean by not having a need to do tax planning for the rich, on the contrary, there is more room for tax planning for the wealthy generally.

There is no direct correlation between tax and politicians. If you 'eat money', that is corruption and is against the law. Has got nothing to do with tax.

---

Added on

Forgotten about no gain no loss transaction, so yeah, the RPGT will not suffer any tax if the transfer is between a parent and a child.


This post has been edited by legiwei: Jul 5 2010, 08:52 PM

Say the government were to go ahead with your suggestion to only impose tax above rm3 million.

Going by this suggestion, the general population that will be taxable will be low.

This means there will be a significant drop in the govt's income and will have to find ways to finance the shortage.

Whatever the solution is, the cost will likely be passed back to us, say inflation or loss of money value.

Something for you to think about. Incidentally, our very monetary system is built upon such shaky foundation, it was not built to be sustainable. But that is another story all together.

Actually, it's not necessary so. In fact, bsed on your example, it is more likely to be not taxable due to the long holding period, the disposal will constitute a capital gain subjected to RPGT. We will have to look into the badges of trade to determine if the transaction is income or capital in nature.

Hmmm... it seems to me that imposing inheritance tax is unfair too as income is tax twice. Why not just increase the tax rate of the higher income bracket group if you like to tax the rich more. In developed nations, it will be as high as 50% but there have a very good social programmes in place from that. In Malaysia, highest income bracket group get tax at 27%, if you earn RM500k, approx RM100k will go to tax, pretty alot to me. In Singapore, the tax rate is much lower if im not mistaken. I think you have to also take into consideration the position of our country, whether it is feasible to implement such form of taxes and the implication that comes with it. And if any case, I do not think inheritance tax will be able to replace tax like GST as implied by you.

Whatever the case to be, at the end of the day, taxes are supposed to be used for get general benefit of the public, like having better infrastructure, healthcare, education, transportation system etc. If none of this is taking place, taxes being paid will be wasted IMO.

I agree that some economist are the reason why we are in this shit today. We now have today a monetary system that is build on a foundation that is not sustainable, where usury takes place in the form of interest which results in inflation to a point where it will buble and the weakest in the supply chain will be phased out.

However, I have come to know that not all economist in the west share such a view. May I suggest you to look into Austrian Economics. There are also very critical of US in particular the manner in which they finance their budget deficit.

If money is supposingly merely as a means to trade, then supply of money should commensurate with the level of production. Hence, there should not be a problem to provide the required financing in order to allow a business enterprise to grow. There are other alternative better models that are capable of supporting economic development and a better standard of living.

You're very right indeed. However, if the goal of every economist is to make the economy free of inflation, deflation, bankruptcy, loss of currency value and all other problems that we are currently facing, then our current model will never be able to achieve that for a simple reason, it is mathematically impossible.

Also, talking about wastage of resources, our current economic model isn't exactly efficient either. Having said that, it's was never build with that purpose on mind either. In fact, it is supposed to be the exact opposite.

If the IRB raise an assessment against you on your disposal of land, just appeal to the SC then, you will have a very strong case. There is actually a landmark case on that transaction that you've just mentioned and the court ruled in favour of the tax payer.

I'm just surprised that with the knowledge that you have, you consider it feasible for us to implement inheritance taxes as a solution which you rank higher than GST, taking into consideration the many possible ways for tax avoidance through careful tax planning too. But again, each has their opinion.

^You are correct. RPGT was never abolished but exempted when the recession came. It was reintroduced a few months back.

You've missed my previous question. Can inheritance tax replace GST especially in the context of Malaysia? When I say Malaysian context, I'm not implying on our political situation, rather it's the economy I'm talking about.

Again, I'm surprised with your proposal to lower tax rates for GST. (Btw, we already have sales and service tax which is equvialent to GST but has a smaller scope) You will have to lower tax rates significantly in order to match tax rates from GST. One is based on your income, the other is on the gross amount on your consumption.

Consumption tax contribute significantly to the government's revenue and cannot be removed or the results could be devastating. In fact, the government's all around the world will only try to find means to increase it.

Most govt's are operating in a deficit to finance the economy one way or the other and this is actually a form of tax. All stimulus package is unlikely to bring everlasting effect due to the nature of the monetary system and eventually, budget deficit will lead to increased in borrowings which will lead to inflation (yeah, stock and property could go out as well which people view it as a good thing but didn't realise that their buying power is actually lowered) and default will be inevitable. All of this are also taxes which people don't see.

From my point of view, your solution are not very practical.

This post has been edited by legiwei: Jul 15 2010, 08:52 PM

Actually, the current "economic model" that is adopted assumed that resources in the world is infinite and thus we could have limitless growth. If you notice, the goal of every corporation and every country for that matter, is to grow, regardless of the size that they have achieved and even if it is at expense of the people. They do not care if the growth is beneficial, so long the figures add up.

I will also have to say that because of money, it has actually slow our progress down. Most of the significant discovery that has benefited us today is contribution from the past, there hasn't been anything significant to date. We are still using combustion engine powered by oil. If say there is a new discovery that could use water to run the engines or say anti levitation technology, this will be a great threat to all the O&G companies that has invested greatly and generating billions in revenue and will do everything in their minds to stop it.

The truth is that the economic model that we utlise today is really IMO to enslave us into a monetary world. How many of the people out there are actually doing a job that is truly beneficial or contribute to the society. Heck, most of the people in this world are probably involved with administrative work which in effect is quite useless and they probably hate it too, doing it just to make money so that they can get enough to eat, or buy whatever that they want. How many people actually really use their brain or involved in activities that could actually contribute progress.

This post has been edited by legiwei: Jul 16 2010, 01:16 AM

The primary objective of every corporation on earth is to increase shareholders wealth. If you read interview, statement or press release by the Companies, CEO or any representative, it will normally go along the lines of growth and then go on to talk about how they will achieve this. If you look from a country's economy perspective, it is normally about GDP. At present, we have a very serious environmental threat which is in direct conflict with the economy. Under normal circumstances where there is such a perceived threat, (that could potentially kill most of the people in the entire planet), all efforts will have been made to resolve such a threat. However, there isn't exactly much goin on except of a growing awareness about it from the coverage of the media. What I'm trying to say is that economic powers will always prevail even in life threathening situation. Business is still at usual with more development the better regardless of the consequences. The economic model is as such in order not to lose out, one will have to "develop/grow", regardless if it's beneficial or not. It is a very selfish model and designed to suit people that has greed in mind.

To me, that is not exactly the stuff in which I call discovery. Most discovery in the modern age is to be more efficient. It sort of improvise existing ideas to make it better but nonetheless the principles remain the same. We are still unable to develop an alternative energy source from oil and we are running out of time. With our current level of technological advancement, I'm confident to say that such a technology could have exist but are not developed further due to the system in place which is a thread to big money. As I've mentioned, due to the current monetary system in place, it has stiffle development/progress more than to contribute it. All research requires funding and corporation will only do so if it's in their interest. They will even go the an extent to fund research to falsely promote that their products is good. Pharmaceutical industry is a very good example.

I am not talking about IMF but the monetary system, a system to enslave us into material persuit. In any case, all monetary system that adopts a central bank that controls the money supply and charges interest couple with fractional banking system that also charges interest is bound to fail regardless of how well it is managed. The reason is simple, it is mathematically impossible to sustain such a system. Also, talking about country's financial management problem, what do you have to say about US?

If you say the function of money is to store value, and is how our monetary system works, that is certainly not true. The piece of money is only a piece of paper which has no value except for a promise of payment. It will only continue to be of value where people have confidence in it and believe that a RM5 will be able to buy them say a bowl of noodles. But in effect, it has no value in itself, not backed by any commodity or gold which was the case in the past. Money in itself is not a consideration but were made to be believed so. Fiat money is actually debt, where currency in issue is very much correlated to the debt of the country.

In any case, paper money represents very little of the total money in circulation in the entire world, most of the it will only appear as figures in computers.

There are actually better models than the current one but the question is will the people be willing to change for it? But I guess I could have answered this question myself, big no.


Precisely, we have alot of jobs created merely in order to sustain the system in which itself is corrupted. Jobs that do not add value and is a means to survive. They probably do not enjoy it. How many people actually gave up their dream in order to persue something that has more economic value. Can you imagine a nation that do not use money? Of course that is a far fetched idea and not feasible but I will leave it as it is. And no, when I say don't use money, I'm not recommending us to go back into the days of barter trade either.

But there are other monetary system that still uses money but are at least sustainable but will still require a significant change.

Interestingly, very often ideas that are contrary to mainstream knowledge will be riducled and the people labelled as fanatics. Btw, a big majority of my post about about the unsustainability of the current monetary system is not just merely an opinion of my own but by economist too.

This post has been edited by legiwei: Jul 16 2010, 10:39 PM

Right, I guess I've deviated significantly from the topic.

^Out of curiousity, why didn't you stay on? I think I pretty much agree that the quality of live over there is pretty good. Further, buying power is very high, where at times you could even convert it back to RM and yet it's still cheaper.

Btw, US also has inheritance tax too.

I guess it's not really about the type of taxes that you have that determine the wealthfare of the nation.