-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PAP Victor Lye say Singaporean unrealistic, must accept lower life quality
- Thread starter brocoli
- Start date
Erm no, he did not say that. What he said is absolutely correct - if your retirement funds are insufficient you will have to either accept a lower quality of life or move to another place where you can attain the same quality of life with whatever funds you have.
The question of course is what can the government do to help? Give out more freebies? Reduce the cost of living? Is this the right way to go?
The case of the couple sounds a bit fishy to me. At 63+ years means they were borne before 1951, so they have reached the CPF DDA which should be sufficient for a decent living on top of their children's allowance. Either they are in a bit of debt or they did not have money in their CPF, being self-employed through their working life.
The question of course is what can the government do to help? Give out more freebies? Reduce the cost of living? Is this the right way to go?
The case of the couple sounds a bit fishy to me. At 63+ years means they were borne before 1951, so they have reached the CPF DDA which should be sufficient for a decent living on top of their children's allowance. Either they are in a bit of debt or they did not have money in their CPF, being self-employed through their working life.
That's all the couple have - a 3-room flat - and the government wants to take that from them.
Does the cost of living need to be that high? No. It was the doing of the government by letting in almost 2 million aliens. Cost of living went awry as a consequence.
And the PAPpy attitude is that you are on your own ...we messed up, you bear the consequences. It is a matter of time before the lynching mob goes after these morons.
Does the cost of living need to be that high? No. It was the doing of the government by letting in almost 2 million aliens. Cost of living went awry as a consequence.
And the PAPpy attitude is that you are on your own ...we messed up, you bear the consequences. It is a matter of time before the lynching mob goes after these morons.
The lease buyback scheme is not being forced on the couple so it's not as if the government is forcing it on them. It also doesn't take the flat from them, and they are allowed to reside there until they pass away. After all what good is the flat to them when they are gone? So I'm therefore quite curious to know why they don't want to take up that scheme.
bro,
The old Australians have fucked themsleves off to live in Vietnam where the Aussies $$ stretched further for them. They get 60% more value for each $1. Beer in Vietnam is A$0.80 cents compare to $4 in Oz.
Singaporeans are either dafts and not extremists like the angmohs that dare to try something new. Like to keep status quo thinking the world moved around them.
Of course downgrade to smaller unit and with the property prices double and tripled in past 20 years, more than CPF money kept with government at 3.2%, sell it off and keep the differences for retirement cash flow.
Can't see the different no wonder Sinkies are daft, by world standard.
Kan nin neh, what's wrong to down grade to JB where the S$ strectches more for the oldies.
knn, Sinkies jaik leow bee, low brain IQ.
he said those dun have enough $$ for retirement please FUCK off to JB where there is plenty of land for cheapo sinkies ah pehs and ah mahs..
We need more land for FTs!!!
The old Australians have fucked themsleves off to live in Vietnam where the Aussies $$ stretched further for them. They get 60% more value for each $1. Beer in Vietnam is A$0.80 cents compare to $4 in Oz.
Singaporeans are either dafts and not extremists like the angmohs that dare to try something new. Like to keep status quo thinking the world moved around them.
Of course downgrade to smaller unit and with the property prices double and tripled in past 20 years, more than CPF money kept with government at 3.2%, sell it off and keep the differences for retirement cash flow.
Can't see the different no wonder Sinkies are daft, by world standard.
Kan nin neh, what's wrong to down grade to JB where the S$ strectches more for the oldies.
knn, Sinkies jaik leow bee, low brain IQ.
he said those dun have enough $$ for retirement please FUCK off to JB where there is plenty of land for cheapo sinkies ah pehs and ah mahs..
We need more land for FTs!!!
Last edited:
The lease buyback scheme is not being forced on the couple so it's not as if the government is forcing it on them. It also doesn't take the flat from them, and they are allowed to reside there until they pass away. After all what good is the flat to them when they are gone? So I'm therefore quite curious to know why they don't want to take up that scheme.
I think the lease buyback scheme is fine for the elderly who require a regular income stream. The fact that some do not wish to take it up is simple: they want to leave a property behind for their children. If they do not have much money in old age then they should be realistic instead of behaving as though they are great benefactors or great matriarchs and patriarchs who will leave behind a significant inheritance. The kids should be told that they cannot inherit a property. But if the parents do go to their grave then the kids can still remain in the property until the lease reaches its end.
Yeah that's what i thought too although I get the impression that their children have already moved out since they are likely to be of working age by now possibly with their own families. Of course if they have a child staying with them having financial difficulties then they would be concerned about leaving the flat behind. In any case we don't know what's going on exactly and can only speculate.
I think the lease buyback scheme is fine for the elderly who require a regular income stream.
I wonder what if you opt for lease buyback and few years later your old flat is chosen to be redeveloped.
Yeah that's what i thought too although I get the impression that their children have already moved out since they are likely to be of working age by now possibly with their own families. Of course if they have a child staying with them having financial difficulties then they would be concerned about leaving the flat behind. In any case we don't know what's going on exactly and can only speculate.
I think the issue is far more straight forward. Whether the children are living with them is immaterial. The fact is that the children now provide some monthly allowance to their parents. Would the children continue to do so if they knew their parents signed up for lease back, which means that the children will not inherit anything? Filial piety appears to be increasingly tied up to calculations of material gain. And, I think understandably so given the direction society is moving in.
I wonder what if you opt for lease buyback and few years later your old flat is chosen to be redeveloped.
From what I know, in SERS the HDB ensures that people living in the affected block do not lose out. In fact they gain. As such, there is nothing to suggest that anyone who opts for lease back and then subsequently the block is affected by SERS would lose out in any way.
From what I know, in SERS the HDB ensures that people living in the affected block do not lose out. In fact they gain. As such, there is nothing to suggest that anyone who opts for lease back and then subsequently the block is affected by SERS would lose out in any way.
You are right that those affected by SERS will normally not lose out, but only if they have the full remaining lease of the flat to give up.
If they had already opted to buy back say half of remaining lease some years ago, that cash amount would have been converted into annuity income.
They will only get half the compensation from SERS.
If they are already too old for a loan, how are they to buy a new flat?
The lease buyback scheme is not being forced on the couple so it's not as if the government is forcing it on them. It also doesn't take the flat from them, and they are allowed to reside there until they pass away. After all what good is the flat to them when they are gone? So I'm therefore quite curious to know why they don't want to take up that scheme.
Because they are Chinese and Chinese believe in leaving something behind for their kids once they pass on. It is a miserable 3-room flat! The government created this high-cost/low wage environment and it boasted that it has lots of programmes to help the poor, so why can't this moronic MP help this couple?
I think the lease buyback scheme is fine for the elderly who require a regular income stream. The fact that some do not wish to take it up is simple: they want to leave a property behind for their children. If they do not have much money in old age then they should be realistic instead of behaving as though they are great benefactors or great matriarchs and patriarchs who will leave behind a significant inheritance. The kids should be told that they cannot inherit a property. But if the parents do go to their grave then the kids can still remain in the property until the lease reaches its end.
You expect Chinese culture to disappear overnight? This couple will die with their flat rather than let the government conned them of the only material gain they have achieved in their lifetime.
Where is the responsibility of the government? Who created this high cost/low wage environment? The government should take ownership and help these folks.
so why can't this moronic MP help this couple?
He is not a MP.
http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest+News/Singapore/Story/A1Story20120212-327450.html
http://www.sammyboy.com/showthread....hammer-can-this-guy-so-it-Victor-Lye-Sexposed
You are right that those affected by SERS will normally not lose out, but only if they have the full remaining lease of the flat to give up.
If they had already opted to buy back say half of remaining lease some years ago, that cash amount would have been converted into annuity income.
They will only get half the compensation from SERS.
If they are already too old for a loan, how are they to buy a new flat?
You have raised a valid question. I did an online search but could not get an official and reliable answer. I think HDB and CPF need to address this particular angle.
Lease buyback is also a bad choice when prices are expected to escalate.
This is because the scheme locks the value of all remaining lease to today's market value, even though only a portion of the remaining lease is given up for cash.
This is because the scheme locks the value of all remaining lease to today's market value, even though only a portion of the remaining lease is given up for cash.
Reverse mortgage is a bad deal in general unless the government is offering a sweet deal of 1 percent interest.
That's beside the point. The government create this high cost/low wage economy and instead of helping sinkees, it tries to squeeze more out of them. That's the beef. This couple only has a miserable 3-room flat from their life's work and yet that elitist PAP MP lambasts them for not willing to give it up. Where's the responsibility of the government?
That's beside the point. The government create this high cost/low wage economy and instead of helping sinkees, it tries to squeeze more out of them. That's the beef. This couple only has a miserable 3-room flat from their life's work and yet that elitist PAP MP lambasts them for not willing to give it up. Where's the responsibility of the government?
Why reverse mortgage is bad ...
http://ochousingnews.com/news/reverse-mortgages-are-a-really-really-bad-idea
http://ochousingnews.com/news/reverse-mortgages-are-a-really-really-bad-idea
A major stumbling block for owners of HDB flats is that they cannot take out a fresh mortgage on their flat despite it being fully paid up. This is known as getting equity from a property. Most families in dire need of cash would prefer this route, which banks call "leveraging up", and essentially involves pledging a property as collateral for a loan. So, even if the person who took out the loan dies, the property can be sold, the bank paid off, and the remaining proceeds go to the heirs (i.e., usually the children). With increasing numbers of elderly without any source of income, the govt may have to look at allowing this for HDB flats.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 20
- Views
- 3K
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 33
- Views
- 2K
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 1K