$1.9M/ baby: Baby bonus scheme ineffective & expensive?
-
quote:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/sammyboymod/messages?msg=92000.12
.
So despite spending about $800 000 000 or EIGHT HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS on pro family measures all we get is an extra 419 babies or 1.9 MILLION DOLLARS for an increase of every 1 baby.Damn bloody ridiculous huh....?????????????
Ok.These are the measures the committee has taken:
1)$10 000 to $20 000 parenthood tax rebate
2)working mother's child relief of 5 to 25 % of income.This money will be huge if she is a top earner like those 2 women in the committee Lim Hwee Hua and Amy Khor.Not surprising that they put in measures that will benefit themselves the most.
3)medisave usage for more birth related matters.
4)baby bonus of $3000 for 1st child ,$9000 for 2nd child,$18000 for 3rd child,$18000 for 4th child.
5)3 months paid maternity leave for women
6)maid levy rebate
7)top up grant for those who marry after 1st Aug 2004
Infant care subsidy of $400 per month
9)grandparent tax relief for working mum of $3000.(Notice the benefits are always for women and women and women.The husbands and single men who could have been encouraged to settle down are completely ignored....what's wrong with all our ministers....??????why so much focus only on our women while our men seem to be completely ignored.It's as though the ministers think that the men don't exist in this country and can be completely ignored....no wonder the ministers fail to increase the birth rate)
10)a fund to implement family friendly workm practices. -
I think this scheme should be stopped, its too expensive, not worth it.
-
Another characteristic "no brainer, one-liner" . .Originally posted by Salman:I think this scheme should be stopped, its too expensive, not worth it.
Careful where you are heading, as your PAPa will not like it . . -
So what do you suggest? Continue throwing money like that away?
-
The govt gives tax relief but sch. fees/ university fees & daily expenses keep increasing, in the long run still too expensive to support too many kids.
I will definately advise my kids not to have more than 2, in fact no need any, if they cannot afford it. -
Yes, it's sheer IDIOCY.
Reduce something, and increase something else at the same time.
What's the difference? Might as bluddy well DON'T bother!!! -
Agreed.Originally posted by gerrykoh:The govt gives tax relief but sch. fees/ university fees & daily expenses keep increasing, in the long run still too expensive to support too many kids.
I will definately advise my kids not to have more than 2, in fact no need any, if they cannot afford it. -
-
-
yes indeed, handouts are dumb, lets take it back for goodness sake. Bloody stupid PAP.
-
Changing sides?Originally posted by Salman:yes indeed, handouts are dumb, lets take it back for goodness sake. Bloody stupid PAP.
-
The worst consequence of giving out scholarships is a talent drain. Considering that Singapore's only resource is human, a talent drain is too heavy a price to pay.Originally posted by cooleo:Gahmen is really dumb. Giving handouts when it doesn't solve the problem. The money could be better spent giving out scholarships.
(WHO'S NEXT TO GIVE OUT MONEY?!
) -
Face it. people don't give birth coz of the incentive the gahmen give but becoz they want it. Anyway its the people money that they are giving back to the people so that's OK and not giving increament to themselves.
-
why people have money spend on pet dog but no money to spend on baby?
-
I think all these baby incentives should be rescinded cos it doesn't work.
-
Such a scheme although may seem to have failed if statistics figures were relied upon but nonetheless, it is still essential. This is due to the increase in the aging population and the declining of the work forces in the near future if a country is not able to meet its required population quotas for the economic.
This phenomenon is not new and are mostly seen in developed countries on capital economic.
Encouragement through monetary incentives I would say could still stay but it could be launch together with a softer approach such as public campaign on the benefits of starting a familiy, which might not works actually, but until better feasible solutions can be come up with I guess.
-
I disagree with the topic starter for condeming this scheme, because it is a very poorly given opinion of his or her.
Whether it is the 400+ additional babies or not, it will definetely lighten the couple who give birth and it should not be measured in the way he put it.
Suppose you are pregnant or your wife is pregnant, obviously you want to enjoy the scheme, unless you have no intention at all for having the next generation.
My comment is that it is a very very short-sighted comment and it only show of an individual narrowlism in throwing out his own personal disgrunt or maybe just trouble-maker.
We should awaits for today's budget.