Not the same excuse again.
-
The Australians, British, and EU citizens must be filling up their singapore migration application forms now.Originally posted by Salman:Are you people willing to pay higher taxes for welfare?
Even more people will complain and migrate if they have to pay high taxes for welfare.
You may be able to migrate, but what about the poor and less educated?
I hope David Beckham will migrate here to enjoy the LOW tax. -
Can we ask the LHL how much more that tomasick have to invest in other countries and what is enough or comfortable that the gov would open up and assist us genuinely. Freaking gov.Originally posted by dragg:i dont understand why they refuse to fork out money to help the needy, aged and poor. their concept is always dont depend on handouts, welfare and no free lunch.
what is the purpose of temasek and its investment arms? why make so much money if it is not for the country and its citizen? what difference does it make if we have US100 billion or US1 trillion in reserves? -
At most, they will only come here to work, but not to become a citizen here.Originally posted by Cindyfeh:The Australians, British, and EU citizens must be filling up their singapore migration application forms now.
I hope David Beckham will migrate here to enjoy the LOW tax.
Their welfare system is too good for them to give up their citizenship.
-
extracted from ST forums.
An extra $200 can help poor break out of poverty trap
Your report 'Raising CPF ceiling won't help workers in long run' (ST Oct 2
conveys disappointing comments from Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen, who is not convinced that the labour movement's call to exempt low-income workers from making CPF contributions will benefit them.
I tend to disagree with his view that raising the CPF ceiling to increase the take-home pay by $200 will erode a fundamental position of the Government - to help those workers own homes.
On the surface, it does look like a short-term gain but in reality the extra $200 may actually help them to break free from the poverty trap.
The purpose is to enable them to meet their daily expenses by unlocking their money until their children grow up. The period is only transitional until things improve. The decrease in savings may change their perspective of life and increase their chances to improve the well-being of the families.
Some may make a difference out of this change of policy. They have to literally accept that life is a gamble that they have to take.
On the suggestion that the Government top up their CPF accounts, I agree that this is not equitable and feasible because it encourages this group not to move up the ladder as they enjoy $200 in extra subsidy per month while others do not.
However, a scheme could be introduced to entice those earning below $1,000 who want to contribute to CPF to enjoy double or higher interest rate in their savings.
The amount of extra interest would be topped up by the Governent. Meeting the NTUC's suggestion halfway may be one solution, ie put the ceiling at $750.
I share the view that saving for old age, medical expenses and building a nest egg is important for the long term but if we cannot survive in the short term, how are we going to plan for the long term?
If low-wage workers have $2,400 more per year of their own money to raise their families, the chances of them breaking free from the poverty trap are much higher than without the cash in hand.
Once they break loose from the vicious cycle, their future may be better and the rest will fall into place.
It is much better to break free from the poverty trap and rent a house than being trapped for life in owning one.
Paul Chan Poh Hoi -
Hey~!~!~!~!I thought sg gov said we are world class or swiss standard already. Today, we are talking about there are still so.....many people working with salaries 1000 and below? Then, sg gov must be telling lies to us...freaking gov.Originally posted by dragg:MOM rejected NTUC's suggestion to increase the salary limit for cpf contribution from $500 to $1000.
the reason for the rejection is the same.
they are concerned that many will not have enough in their cpf to buy flats or pay for medical fees.
can they come up with something better? -
I always wonder if mr ng is qualified to be in MOMOriginally posted by dragg:extracted from ST forums.
An extra $200 can help poor break out of poverty trap
Your report 'Raising CPF ceiling won't help workers in long run' (ST Oct 2 conveys disappointing comments from Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen, who is not convinced that the labour movement's call to exempt low-income workers from making CPF contributions will benefit them.
I tend to disagree with his view that raising the CPF ceiling to increase the take-home pay by $200 will erode a fundamental position of the Government - to help those workers own homes.
On the surface, it does look like a short-term gain but in reality the extra $200 may actually help them to break free from the poverty trap.
The purpose is to enable them to meet their daily expenses by unlocking their money until their children grow up. The period is only transitional until things improve. The decrease in savings may change their perspective of life and increase their chances to improve the well-being of the families.
Some may make a difference out of this change of policy. They have to literally accept that life is a gamble that they have to take.
On the suggestion that the Government top up their CPF accounts, I agree that this is not equitable and feasible because it encourages this group not to move up the ladder as they enjoy $200 in extra subsidy per month while others do not.
However, a scheme could be introduced to entice those earning below $1,000 who want to contribute to CPF to enjoy double or higher interest rate in their savings.
The amount of extra interest would be topped up by the Governent. Meeting the NTUC's suggestion halfway may be one solution, ie put the ceiling at $750.
I share the view that saving for old age, medical expenses and building a nest egg is important for the long term but if we cannot survive in the short term, how are we going to plan for the long term?
If low-wage workers have $2,400 more per year of their own money to raise their families, the chances of them breaking free from the poverty trap are much higher than without the cash in hand.
Once they break loose from the vicious cycle, their future may be better and the rest will fall into place.
It is much better to break free from the poverty trap and rent a house than being trapped for life in owning one.
Paul Chan Poh Hoi
-
it is nothing but an excuse.
these people only talk rubbish but make millions. -
true isnt it?Originally posted by Lowclassman:Hey~!~!~!~!I thought sg gov said we are world class or swiss standard already. Today, we are talking about there are still so.....many people working with salaries 1000 and below? Then, sg gov must be telling lies to us...freaking gov.
i wonder why they are so concerned. obviously there are many people in that salary range. -
Well, its all good money for them. Lets say that we have just 5,000 peasants earning roughly 1k a month (thats a ridiculously low estimate btw, the real numbers much higher).Originally posted by dragg:true isnt it?
i wonder why they are so concerned. obviously there are many people in that salary range.
Each person has $200 sucked into CPF. 200 x 5,000 is $1 million. Thats $1 million a month for the government to use! 12 million dollars a year just from this tiny group! I haven't even added the employer's contribution somemore. Of course the government does not want to give up this "income". -
excerpts extracted from STimes.
DOS (department of statistics) made the point that even households in the bottom 20% by income, have , on average, accumulated home equity of $138k each. this is the sum they would receive after selling their flat and paying off the outstanding loan from HDB.
DOS also suggested that families who owned their homes were "well off in terms of the asset value of their flats".
but how does this help low-income families when they come up against hard times? some economists have questioned the usefulness of wealth locked up in HDB homes. the board's rules make it difficult for homeowners to benefit from the value of their flats.
so how does having large sums of home equity help poor families? -
Singaporeans are asset rich but cash poor. There is only 1 solution as far as I can see whilst the govt will not chip in...
Singaporeans should work as long as they can and when they can no longer do so, emigrate to a third world nation. Sell everything, HDB flat and all...and go to a ulu part of Indonesia or Sri Lanka for retirement. The $50k you get after settling all your debts in Sg will give you a fairly comfortable life there. You can rear some chickens, plant some vegetables and run a small provision shop to see you through the rest of your life. -
More like liability rich and cash poor.Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Singaporeans are asset rich but cash poor.