-
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.
Serious Jo Teo's idiotic reasons for rejecting unemployment insurance
- Thread starter Confuseous
- Start date
she looks like a walking cadaver...
Sounds like Jo is leaving the door open to unemployment insurance rather than rejecting it outright like in the old days.
Some back of envelop calculations shows its not too costly to implement.
Workers wage share of GDP is around 40% of roughly $500bn which works out to $200bn in wages annually.
Unemployment insurance can be funded by creating a pool of 1.5% of the 1st $100bn in wages. With a tripartite arrangement - worker, boss, government can each contribute 0.5% towards this pool and raise around $1.5bn per year.
There are roughly 70,000 unemployed residents each year. If each one received 1.8k a month for a year, it's around 1.5bn annually.
Someone earning $6000 per month will only pay $30 per month into this pool.
For a mere $500mn per year from the government, we can create a long term sustainable social safety net for residents. The knock on effects will be numerous and positive for society.
The great thing about unemployment insurance payouts, is that it largely gets spent and recycled back into the economy. So it should be a net gain to the economy overall.
Why aren't we doing this already???
Some back of envelop calculations shows its not too costly to implement.
Workers wage share of GDP is around 40% of roughly $500bn which works out to $200bn in wages annually.
Unemployment insurance can be funded by creating a pool of 1.5% of the 1st $100bn in wages. With a tripartite arrangement - worker, boss, government can each contribute 0.5% towards this pool and raise around $1.5bn per year.
There are roughly 70,000 unemployed residents each year. If each one received 1.8k a month for a year, it's around 1.5bn annually.
Someone earning $6000 per month will only pay $30 per month into this pool.
For a mere $500mn per year from the government, we can create a long term sustainable social safety net for residents. The knock on effects will be numerous and positive for society.
The great thing about unemployment insurance payouts, is that it largely gets spent and recycled back into the economy. So it should be a net gain to the economy overall.
Why aren't we doing this already???
That is why the reasons given by the PAP via stupid Jo Teo is incredulous.
Trouble is, anything that comes out from the opposition is crap.
Anything that PAP offers is crabmeat.
Party above Country, that is the problem with this government.
Trouble is, anything that comes out from the opposition is crap.
Anything that PAP offers is crabmeat.
Party above Country, that is the problem with this government.
Bleeding to death is dengue
This wp should be harping on the fact that the govt seem panicky about the depressed economic situation brought about by covid19 and what are their exact plans if the vaccine really needs one year of testing before humans can use it...not such far fledged qns about employment insurance
It's from my broomstick in her old cunt.
She is full of crock ...especially this …
"In response, Mrs Teo said that countries that provide unemployment insurance usually have persistently high unemployment" ...which countries? USA, Canada, UK, Australia.
Her solution is to expect your family to support you if you are unemployed. If you are the sole breadwinner, you can look for her.
"In response, Mrs Teo said that countries that provide unemployment insurance usually have persistently high unemployment" ...which countries? USA, Canada, UK, Australia.
Her solution is to expect your family to support you if you are unemployed. If you are the sole breadwinner, you can look for her.
Yes my multimillionaire ministers should reject any ideas raised by oppositions. Thereafter, they take the idea, change abit then package as another name and insist it is not the same. Like that so clever, no wonder they are multimillionaire ministers. Long live PAP, huat ahhhhhh
Similar threads
