-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Ideal salary for living in Singapore is S$6,000: survey
- Thread starter krafty
- Start date
You can add in friends weddings, funeral wakes and one vacation per year. Not forgetting those who have to rent a flat for 4 to 5 years while waiting for their new flats to be complete, it is extra $3,000 per month.
Yes I understand that but what I am saying is that an ideal salary means nothing over the long term if a good portion of it is not saved up.
It is better to talk about an ideal situation rather than an ideal salary as salaries mean nothing if you're spending everything or more than you earn (which is often the case considering the number of people who actually use high interest credit card loans to fund their lifestyles).
An ideal situation, regardless of salary, is when a couple can save at least $3000 or more per month in today's money.
I can agree about the savings part but it is ridiculous to suggest savings of $3,000 for a family that earns $4,000 and below.
I think there is no such thing as "ideal salary" - if yes it has to reference to the person historical lifestyle.
E.g. my friend earn 2.5k but he has been supporting his family , and own a car, for many many years, he has got used to this sort of lifestyle. 6K to him will becomes a bonus. Is all depend on how the person define ideal.
A family which earns $4000 can aim to save about $20,000 per year and extend the target 5 years to age 50.
They'll have a savings of $1.4 million at that age. Add CPF to the mix and they should have another few hundred thousand to supplement their balance sheet.
However, I cannot emphasise enough what a big difference having a chunk of savings will have to ones options in life. It opens up so many more possibilities along the way towards your goal.
A couple who earn $4000 per month and save nothing will probably go through life just earning that amount or thereabouts. However, a couple who earn $4000 per month but save $20,000 per year will find that after 5 years of savings and with $100,000 in the bank, they have far more confidence to take steps to boost their incomes to the next level.
In my case for example, I had sufficient confidence in my early 30s to buy investment properties because by that age, I had saved up enough to service the loans even if was out of work for 2 years. Had I lived from hand to mouth and spent all my money on fancy stuff, I would not have dared to take the plunge and the sequence of events which led to my early retirement would not have taken flight.
There is nothing more inspiring than having cold hard cash saved up when you're young. It makes you feel that you can achieve your dreams and allows you take the steps required to turn them into reality. Having no savings or worse, being in debt, is like trying to run a race with your legs tied together. You're severely hampered by your lack of a buffer when making financial decisions. It paralyses your thought process.
Eh then their whole life is about saving $ based on your earn $4k save $20k per yr advice.
By 50 they have lots of money but no more energy to spend . They could be even end up in IMH with $1.4mil LOL
Runifyouhaveto has given a reasonable breakdown that is considered as ideal.
I know many people earning $2,500 like your friend who do not give money to their parents. Maybe your friend does, but mine do not or give very little. Based on Runifyouhaveto's list, that would save him $1,000.
But is that an "ideal" situation? If the government dared to conduct a survey (or maybe they did but dare not release the findings) they will find that many Gen Y Singaporeans are not giving their retired parents enough money equivalent to a low salary. Some give like $200 per month. What can $200 do for an old couple?
The pioneer generation package was obviously to address this phenomenon. Many elderly, the PAP's biggest vote bank, had turned away from PAP in 2011 because it was sucking the money out of their young children's pockets, causing them to be unable to provide for their parents.
I've never found saving money to be energy sapping. In fact spending less on frivolous activities allows for more time to indulge in healthy pursuits.
For example, many of my work colleagues used to head to the lounges of Orchard Road 3 to 4 times a week after work. They'd spend $1000 or more per month on Black Label, Royal Salute and other fancy drinks designed to impress. In my case I'd head to MacRitchie for a 3.2 km jog. It cost me nothing and I didn't have a hangover at work the next day so I performed better at work too.
With a clear head, I could carry my boss's balls more effectively and my salary rose accordingly so you can see how the returns multiply in more ways than one.
To save $20,000 a year is $1,700 a month. That leaves the family $2,300 a year. If the family needs to rent a flat, they will probably have to eat gas to survive.
By the way thanks for telling me your story but I am not interested as it is a past story, a past PAP that did better than now.
This is a good story about saving but has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
None of the families referred to here are spending more than $1,000 in alcohol.
The government is not sucking their money. They spend it all by themselves on fancy stuff.
http://www.straitstimes.com/digital-life/phone/story/samsung-galaxy-s5-launch-singapore-20140411
The cost of handphones are nothing. If you own a HDB flat, one month of utilities plus conservancy charges alone already give you half the handphone price and you are talking about necessities.
If the PAP has no qualms about charging you $3 per transport ride, why do they tell Singaporeans about overspending.
Times may change but the wisdom of thrift does not. The figures I give are merely examples to illustrate a point.
Each person has to work out their own sums but the bottom line is that savings have to commence at an early age and the urge to splurge has to be suppressed.
It's a simple philosophy of postponing gratification. It's something humans have the ability to do if they so choose. If they're careful during their productive years, retirement will be viable and pleasant. If they adopt a devil-may-care attitude, they'll pay for it later.
This applies regardless of CPF regulations and doesn't depend upon who runs the country. It's boils down to taking ownership of your life rather than leaving it in the hands of others.
In NZ, the council rates are even more exorbitant. Nothing to do with the PAP. ALL governments do that.
Almost everyone has a smartphone these days. Certainly you do not need to always buy the latest and greatest, but the device depreciates in value with time. The ideal scenario is to trade-in for a newer phone before or after your telco contract is up so as to obtain maximum value.
Sometimes its not just how much you earn, its how much you save.
In NZ and for all the governments, as you say, are struggling with majorities every day and sleepless nights over election results. Guess what. That's what people like me are planning to do to the PAP.
I thought I'd add a bit regarding this issue.
I agree that overheads were lower then compared to now. However, why then are there so many PMETs my age who are now driving taxis or working as security guards.
I was a PMET in my younger days and I have ex PMET colleagues who have happily retired and love the PAP and I have ex PMET colleagues who are now driving taxis and curse the PAP.
So why the different outcomes when we lived in the same era and worked in the same company? The answer lies in the choices each individual made along the way.
The richest ex PMET colleague that I am still in touch with had one aim in life and that was to accumulate properties. He was a senior engineer who was probably drawing around $6000 at the time. He took a bus to work daily. Never owned a car in his younger days. He's probably worth more than $15 million now.
On the other side of the coin is an ex colleague who used to be a Department head probably drawing about $12,000 per month. He loved his cars. They had to be Continental cars and he changed them often. Nice cars attracted nice looking chicks who needed to be pampered accordingly. You guessed it... he's now broke. If he jumped MRT tomorrow, I would not be surprised. Of course everyone would blame the PAP. I would say he brought it upon himself.
No they are not. The politicians here are simply on a merry go round. They spend a few years in opposition and a few years in power and this cycle repeats itself. They have their old boy/girl network too. No politician ends up unemployed. When Helen Clarke was kicked out of office, she ended up in the UN heading some obscure organisation which does nothing much but pays her more than half a million annually.
Similar threads
