-
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.
PAP is government, but votes is not something they are absolutely entitled to
- Thread starter theDoors
- Start date
Public housing is a form of welfare. Oh dear. It's going downhill. I won't be replying to any of you blue PAPzi astroturfers any longer. Enjoy your time here.
I did not say that Public housing is a form of welfare.
Public housing is a form of welfare. Oh dear. It's going downhill. I won't be replying to any of you blue PAPzi astroturfers any longer. Enjoy your time here.
I did not say that Public housing is a form of welfare.
If public housing is a form of welfare, the Govt is giving it out whether you need it or not.
Well, HDB does provide some Welfare housing, in the form of heavily subsidized rental flats for families in hardship. The large majority of HDB flats, however, probably should not be considered Welfare housing if they are sold by HDB to citizens at more than cost price, since that would mean HDB is not losing money, but in fact earning a profit, by providing public housing.
Perhaps we should start by defining what social welfare is, like good debating teams of yore?
Some social welfare programs, unemployment insurance spending for instance, run counter to business cycles. Since many countries run their countries on net zero fiscal balance (as opposed to years and years of recorded fiscal surpluses by the PAP govt), it is not a stretch to say fiscal balances would go into the red during bad economic times as tax revenues and welfare spending increases. To meet these obligations, govts must borrow if reserves from previous years of fiscal surpluses are not used.
Therefore to say public debt is completely irrelevant to social welfare would be disingenuous.
Here's a pop quiz for you folks. Who do you think the Workfare program is really subsidizing? There are many prima donnas in the public and private sectors whom we need to help wean off the nanny state, and frankly I think you all got your crosshairs fixed on the wrong targets.
Last edited:
You've quoted me out of context. You will have to go back to post #4, where the author tried to link public debt size to entitlement spending crisis, to see what the whole argument is about. What I've been trying to say is the size of our public debt (being 100.7% of GDP) has no effect on our capability to spend on welfare and entitlement. What matters is whether we have the government revenue to sustain the spending.
The level of public debt has been linked to entitlement programs in Greece and even the United States to suggest welfare spending leads to fiscal disaster.
Unless I am mistaken, Cruxx suggested that Singapore has a higher public debt level compared to welfare states, an anomaly to observers despite lower levels of social spending. I do not think by making that observation he is suggesting that Singapore does not have the capacity to fund entitlement programs.
Hear, hear! I was merely mocking the Sinkie fallacy that Sinkieland is a picture of fiscal prudence by virtue of her anti-welfare policies. I said nothing about the sustainability of debt at all.
Back to the topic on hand, I agree with your assertion that SingGov has ample capacity for "entitlement spending". The priorities of current public expenditure includes 1) obscene remuneration to political appointment holders and Familee-run Temasek Holdings as well as 2) other pork barrel entitlement programs to subsidize private businesses.
I am suggesting a prudent cabinet could trade 1 and 2 for some social spending programs that benefit the electorate, and still run a fiscal surplus year after year. You know there are alot of PAP apologists lurking in online forums and this is my message to them: SingGov does not need to raise taxes or issue more public debt in order to fund social spending programs if one knows where to cut. In fact, if you cut some of the existing "entitlement programs" to minions, lackeys and the 1%, an alternative government can still function as before.
There you have it. We are all on the same side of the fence folks.
Last edited:
Fuck it lah.
Ass loong mentoned to increase social spending, he will have to raise taxes.
Even before he gives, he is already demanding you to pay up with interest added.
So what difference does it make?
right hand gives $, left hand robs you off your $.
you call this social spending?
Hahaha, What a bloody joke.
Even when they gives peanuts to social spending, they incur almost 100% of public debt?
Even a moron can ask and answer, where have all the money gone?
Ass loong mentoned to increase social spending, he will have to raise taxes.
Even before he gives, he is already demanding you to pay up with interest added.
So what difference does it make?
right hand gives $, left hand robs you off your $.
you call this social spending?
Hahaha, What a bloody joke.
Even when they gives peanuts to social spending, they incur almost 100% of public debt?
Even a moron can ask and answer, where have all the money gone?
Singaporeans, we are all hard working people, we can take care of ourselves. However PAP please stop plundering from us. Please stop treating our country's resources as your own. Please stop taxing us necessarily through the guise of ERP, CPF, COE, GST etc etc.
PAP should take a leaf from the teaching profession - Tax less, do more.
Similar threads
