July 12, 2006
-
<做秀>
前兩日收到個電郵, 呼籲全港市民今年 8 月 8 日晚上 8 時熄燈 三分鐘, 以 “引起政府對環境污染問題的關注”. (www.lightsout.com.hk)
環保喎, 梗係要訓身, 不惜一切咁支持拉. 尤其當我去完澳洲, 空氣何奇清新? 我帶個d 鼻敏感藥都無掂過.
睇清楚d, 熄燈渣喎. 點解唔熄埋冷氣同風扇? 據我所知, 一屋用電用得最勁既係呢兩樣野 – 要支持環保, 減少用電, 從而令發電廠減少由燒煤所生產既電力 – 唔係應該拿拿淋熄埋冷氣佢?
今日蘋果話廣州官渡珠江做環保秀. 游一次水就環保到, 咁香港大浪彎同清水灣咪日日有香港人捨身成仁? 如果對珠江既水質咁有信心, 不如搵個水杯黎倒兩啖你飲咧?
_________________________________________________________________
香港既經濟學者 – 即大學個班 – 人工就高, 但收納稅人錢既佢地, 都未試過為納稅人講野.
政府話要收 GST, 點解無一個經濟學者走出黎反對? 大部份係外國浸過咸水既佢地, 莫非連經濟學 101 都唔識, 淨係識 overlapping generation model?
至於政府… 又走出黎o厄人. 你班愚民, 以為 standard rate 真係可以減 5%… 弱智. 以為中小企可以有 exemption 唔使俾稅? 發夢咧. 對經濟無影響咁正, 咁不如收夠 500% 拉.
我從來無聽過有人敢講收稅對經濟有利.
但係香港呢個咁荒謬既地方, 有人敢講, 又竟然有人信.
愚民, 繼續俾錢你既高官同政府法定團體拉.
Comments (3)
why don’t you talk abt the problems of GST?
Few people are against public goods and most public goods require tax $$ to support (& sustain). In this sense, taxation is not all that bad. the question is just “what is the optimum level of taxation?”
The gov presents the GST as a way to switch tax burdens from a small constitutency to a larger public. You think that is a lie?
The consultation is yet open for public discussion. I do not have the copy and cannot comment the details further.
It’s beyond the optimal level of taxation. And concerning “public goods” argument, it is the spending/expenditure that determines taxation/income, rather than the reverse. More taxation income will not lead to some public goods originally unnecessary becoming economically justified now.
With Hong Kong running a budget suprlus – I mean overall budget surplus, there is unspent income/taxation. There is little justification, from my point of view, for implementing a new tax for financing “financially-unviable” public goods.
If all tax monies go to those public goods and infrastructure directly without involving the government officials’ hands, there is less problem.
Regarding the distribution of tax burden, if there is no compensation package, that’s not a lie. But i doubt were the so-called “economically disadvantageous ” population worse-off with GST, our great LegCo members will let it go. This implies at the end of the day it is the middle class that pays tax.
In the case of Hong Kong, GST is the worst way of switching the burden from a smaller to larger population.
沒讀經濟學的我﹕
1. 收消費稅極之繁瑣，收到既錢又唔多(政府聲稱得幾億)，除左益左稅局(請多D人)同會計師之外，我都諗唔到有邊個得益。
2. 如果要擴闊稅基，最簡單既事就係收人頭稅，至少簡單，運作成本低。
但係政府又需要提供回扣協助貧困戶諸如此類……到頭黎同入息稅有咩分別﹖
睇施永青有一個論點幾合理﹕其實香港一向都有間接消費稅，因為香港行高地價政策。政府靠高地價支付公共開支，地價成本又間接攤分俾消費者，只不過冇消費稅咁清楚而已。
依家仲收消費稅，高地價政策又不取消(冇人夠膽黎多次八萬五)，豈不是雙種徵稅﹖
仲有，最大既問題係﹕香港出名低稅同稅制簡單，依家等於「欲煉神功，必先自宮」。
所以，如果佢一定要收，我就一定要上街。