much as me have disdain for the way the PAP functions now, me give credits to them when it is due.
even when me have a solution for this predicament, it wouldn't be offered to you.
-
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.
$1000 Flat- The Math
- Thread starter Char_Azn
- Start date
much as me have disdain for the way the PAP functions now, me give credits to them when it is due.
even when me have a solution for this predicament, it wouldn't be offered to you.
my solution is that housing should be privatise... peasant buy what peasant can afford, peasant dun buy with CPF $ so that when they are old and have no CPF ... they jolly well dun expect the govt and taxpayers to pay ....
If its all privatised, we will end up like HK situation where ppl live in cages and coops. This is not acceptable.
In the end, they too have build small subsidised flats just like we do here.
If you think about it, the govt does have a good balance of solution here w/o taxing us too much.
shall cut you some slack here. you're right to say that the poor had not been taxed too much in income tax, then again there's GST.
back on the HDB issue, will give you more rope as well. HDB is started in the early years to provide cheap and affordable housing to the masses.
idea was good, until the prices got too high comparatively due to relative wage stagnation of the poor.
solution 1: certainly feasible, get the HDB to charge lower interests when they give out the loans to those purchasing small flats, i.e. 2 or 3 room flats.
it shortens the repayment cycle by reducing the total repayable amount to HDB and can give the poor a breather.
SORRY the govt is clueless, why do they have silver hosing bonus and leasebuyback ////
because they let peasant buy what they cant afford, now they wan peasant to sell their hosue to feed themselves...
our land area and population density is higher than HK, so why should our people live in a bigger place..?
doesnt make geometrical sense...
it is not about how much they tax us now, it how much they have to tax us in the future when we have 1/3 retirees population....
not happy with making peasant spend their retirement $, they are are now spending our future unborned generations tax revenue...
why make gst voucher permanent.??? this govt is just running a massive ponzi scheme and at the same time eroding work ethics with their vote buying subsidies
charging lower interests ??? how low are interest rate now???
Last edited:
agree on the fairness part. then in relative sense, the poor would have less disposable income. hard to strike a balance.
last noted HDB charging some 2.6% or something? SIBOR rates are about 1+%
Let everybody pay something, its a matter of principle and society building. The amount that the poor pay is definitely much less than they get subsidised for.
The important thing is that opportunities are open for them to upgrade, no on can blame the govt if these people do not take opportunities and work hard to imprive themselves.
The important thing is that opportunities are open for them to upgrade, no on can blame the govt if these people do not take opportunities and work hard to imprive themselves.
the poor just have to consume less, stop buying ipads, iphones or prada when these item are more than half their income...
look at this paper: http://knowledge.insead.edu/INSEAD-knowledge-when-spending-hurts-120117.cfm
Alfie is a London hair stylist. He is 25 years old, smart, and fond of expensive designer clothes. He puts himself into the low income bracket and admits his spending habits go way beyond his monthly salary. “I live in the moment, I spend rather than save and once I have splurged I wait for next month’s salary to do it all over again. I like to look good and stand out especially around my peers.”
consumers on a low income tend to spend conspicuously i.e. on status enhancing bling rather than on essentials like health and education and why the option of saving money comes way down on the priority list.
so why subsidise these buggers, if anything we should raise GST
why dun they take bank loan instead... simple,
they prefer to spend their future retirement $$$
Last edited:
agree on this count, but help must be readily, suitably rendered when there's a cry for help :p:p:p
help must be rendered though volunteer orgainsiation not given out thru budget to undeserving lazy scums
agree on many counts, bro.
me always advocate spending within one's means, proper sustenance to maintain healthy bodily functions is basic. tangible material goods can be given up, focusing on the needs and not wants.
-to delete this portion
as of why they didn't take bank loans, that beats me. my maths already not good, hard to educate them :(:(:(
-to insert this portion
suddenly remembered that bank loans need collaterals, HDB cannot be used as collateral if me isn't mistaken :(:(:(
Last edited:
help is there. You ever volunteered for grassroots organisations? The MP hand out a lot of cheques to pay bills regularly you know? Many who complain don't know cos they never really cared for the poor enough to volunteer.
That is actually a good model indeed.
If people want to be generous towards the poor and needy, let them be generous with their own money and not force govt to use other people's money to be generous while they pay nothing much.
True. It must be accessible and not say have paperwork that goes for miles and nothing happens. We did a test on workfare before. It is fake and more to benefit those involved with getting money from the government and pretending to train and employ people. It is really a feedback system to the initial budget provider with no real trickle down. There are many developing countries with better and more beautifully written laws than Singapore. But they are never enforced. The citizens of Singapore should also not donate money to the lazy public organizations that use less than 20 cents a dollar for kidney dialysis money and invest in some Nigerian failed project. They can do it with casino, and other forms of gambling. If they have a prostitution tax, I also not mind if they use that for some Nigerian failed project. But no fake charity donations. I do not care if it involves a figure head and perhaps it involves a figure head, it is more of a concern.
Last edited:
Similar threads
