Re : Govt should relook income qualifying levels
-
as i said its just easier sayign such stuff. i can say it too but then to actually do it is another problem. even if you can easily doesn't mean the same for others.Originally posted by pipipopo:its all in the mind and i believe psychic barrier is in play here. after all not many poor will withstand the lure of spending all the money when they strike a 4-d and not many rich will sell their property without a profit but just for a break even.
for me to advice , to survive you have to be strong but psychically and mentally. there are times when u hav to accept the fact that things hav changed and nothing stays the same forever. looking at the situation i somehow felt that moving into a family life and havin kids and babies should affect a family more than the size of a house. if one cannot adapt to the size of a house, how can he/ she adapt to the commitment of raising a child?
and also i feel that sometimes whether to have kids is also dependent on whether you can provide the "best" for them. which further complicates the issue. the size of the house might be a factor, the facilities? the extra money on hand they woud have to spendon all the tonnes of lessons the child might want/need?
its definitely not just a simple issue. its at least a matter of mindset, expectations, personal standards and more, somethign that is never simple though it sounds to be. -
its definitely not just a simple issue. its at least a matter of mindset, expectations, personal standards and more, something that is never simple though it sounds to beOriginally posted by hisoka:as i said its just easier sayign such stuff. i can say it too but then to actually do it is another problem. even if you can easily doesn't mean the same for others.
and also i feel that sometimes whether to have kids is also dependent on whether you can provide the "best" for them. which further complicates the issue. the size of the house might be a factor, the facilities? the extra money on hand they woud have to spendon all the tonnes of lessons the child might want/need?
its definitely not just a simple issue. its at least a matter of mindset, expectations, personal standards and more, somethign that is never simple though it sounds to be.
then its time to fix the midset, expectations, personal standards before going up to the authorities hoping to fix a policy in place to curb mis-use and abuse of the property exchange market. -
Originally posted by pipipopo:
I can almost see the next ad campaign for encouraging birth rate in Singapore.
then its time to fix the midset, expectations, personal standards before going up to the authorities hoping to fix a policy in place to curb mis-use and abuse of the property exchange market.
[/b]
Want to have children?
Look at that nice car you have, sell it and take buses
Look at the nice house you own, sell it and live an old HDB
Savngs for retirement? Forget it
Playschool for the kids? Stop dreaming
- yeah, I can already see young Singaporean couples waiting to make babies for the country. How persuasive.
The letter said in one paragraph that they did their planning and calculation. I'm sure they are mature and sensible enough not to include material comfort in that list.
So why has a decent request for a chance to build some savings, a decent attempt to financial planning become a selfish, arrogant, self centre, upper middle class couple who wants to speculate in property? for all you know, they are planning the money for children's education or even their own retirement.
Talking about that, how many of us actually knows how to plan our finances anyway. For all you know, if you do some realistic calculation, you might see what they see.
I suggest we all take part in AIA financial planning excerise to find out. Maybe this couple know somethings that we don't.
I think what BillyBong said make sense... the crux of the question is WHY? why would someone who seem intelligent enough; and definitely earning a decent living, say that they forsee problems in their finances if they want kids? -
Originally posted by anonymouscoward:
you go sell this agenda...i have read your words and i rest my case because this agenda will never in this life of mine topple the property resale rules we have with CPF and HDB with regards to the income ceiling. I see my posts here have addressed to the article printed in ST. It should have been "Proper financial planning to have both sides of the world in an era of uncertain property market holdings so that you can start a family".
I can almost see the next ad campaign for encouraging birth rate in Singapore.
[b]Want to have children?
Look at that nice car you have, sell it and take buses
Look at the nice house you own, sell it and live an old HDB
Savngs for retirement? Forget it
Playschool for the kids? Stop dreaming
- yeah, I can already see young Singaporean couples waiting to make babies for the country. How persuasive.
The letter said in one paragraph that they did their planning and calculation. I'm sure they are mature and sensible enough not to include material comfort in that list.
So why has a decent request for a chance to build some savings, a decent attempt to financial planning become a selfish, arrogant, self centre, upper middle class couple who wants to speculate in property? for all you know, they are planning the money for children's education or even their own retirement.
Talking about that, how many of us actually knows how to plan our finances anyway. For all you know, if you do some realistic calculation, you might see what they see.
I suggest we all take part in AIA financial planning excerise to find out. Maybe this couple know somethings that we don't.
I think what BillyBong said make sense... the crux of the question is WHY? why would someone who seem intelligent enough; and definitely earning a decent living, say that they forsee problems in their finances if they want kids?[/b] -
There has to a cut-off point somewhere. Raise it higher to $9000 and those with $9000 will complain. Raise it to $10,000 and those with $10,000 will complain. Like I said, I think its about managing expectations.
Besides the real question here is : do you want to swap place with those of us from the lower income then since your life is so miserable? You know the answer yourself. -
I agree that there has to be a cut off point somewhere. Maybe increase the limit to $10k (the current value for EC). Of course, the govt will need some smart mathematician to justify this amount.Originally posted by Xenthar:There has to a cut-off point somewhere. Raise it higher to $9000 and those with $9000 will complain. Raise it to $10,000 and those with $10,000 will complain. Like I said, I think its about managing expectations.
Besides the real question here is : do you want to swap place with those of us from the lower income then since your life is so miserable? You know the answer yourself.
Finally, I think we shouldn't speculate on why the couple is asking for help. Be it prudent financial planning with genuine issues at downgrading or stupid and greedy high income earners who simply wants more.
The issue at hand is whether $8000 is really high income in Singapore given our current living standard and cost of living -
Again ppl are trying to go around in loops...and again ppl just refuse to accept that its not the figures that need to be changed but the mindset. until revoked and revised, 8K income ceiling is approriate. The figure has been worked against the maximum limit of loan applicable including interest stretched to the maximum duration of repayment period.Originally posted by anonymouscoward:I agree that there has to be a cut off point somewhere. Maybe increase the limit to $10k (the current value for EC). Of course, the govt will need some smart mathematician to justify this amount.
Finally, I think we shouldn't speculate on why the couple is asking for help. Be it prudent financial planning with genuine issues at downgrading or stupid and greedy high income earners who simply wants more.
The issue at hand is whether $8000 is really high income in Singapore given our current living standard and cost of living -
Want to have children?
Look at that nice car you have, sell it and take buses
Look at the nice house you own, sell it and live an old HDB
Savngs for retirement? Forget it
Playschool for the kids? Stop dreaming
I think the point is that with the negative equity, it doesn't help even if they want to downgrade. sell off the condo? The guy will probably have to fork out $$$$ to cover up the bank loan. That leaves him with no options. All in all I think it's simply the couple's fault for committing themselves to a heavy house loan. -
Very interesting. Please tell us more about this formula and where you get it. If what you say is correct. Then $8000 is appropriate and this guy really shouldn't be having any issues.Originally posted by pipipopo:The figure has been worked against the maximum limit of loan applicable including interest stretched to the maximum duration of repayment period. -
I think you may have hit the jackpot here. Unless the author tells us more, this would be my guess also.Originally posted by qooorange:I think the point is that with the negative equity, it doesn't help even if they want to downgrade. sell off the condo? The guy will probably have to fork out $$$$ to cover up the bank loan. That leaves him with no options. All in all I think it's simply the couple's fault for committing themselves to a heavy house loan. -
if what i say is correct then 8k is appropriate and the guy really shouldn't be having issues with the figures because the guy is having issues with his mindset.Originally posted by anonymouscoward:Very interesting. Please tell us more about this formula and where you get it. If what you say is correct. Then $8000 is appropriate and this guy really shouldn't be having any issues.
http://www.cpf.gov.sg/cpfhsg/cal_input.asp
go to the above link and calculated the maximum income versus maximum loan period versus the maximum repaying percentage per income holder versus the maximu stretch of repayment period versus the current interest rate and you will get about S$500K.
in my own example i quote a couple of 4k income each, starting at age 25, paying a loan for 30 years, at an interest rate of 4.25 percent, using the maximum of 30% of their monthly income for loan servicing, and yields a total initial loan amount of S$487,865 which is around S$500K.
it seems like you can't hold your arguements with wordsin this discussion, so i open up new grounds and you can try to win your arguements with the figures. after all you don't have much tweaking over the figures to bring it far from the 500K mark
-
don't presume or guess...if you want to bring a case to the authority you've got to have hard facts..otherwise a learned and wise reader will simply dismiss the article as just a column the page planner had in place to fill up the gap for that day's issue of the Straits Times.Originally posted by anonymouscoward:I think you may have hit the jackpot here. Unless the author tells us more, this would be my guess also. -
Just some extrapolation...
The same argument by some of you seems to suggest that 'relatively rich pple' (combined >$8000) shouldnt be allowed to stay in public hospitals...
Honestly, why should we deprive these pple?
Does it mean that when they earn a certain level of income, they should throw away age-old wisdom on being thrifty and saving for a rainy day???
Giving them less subsidy sounds more workable, but to deprive them of it is somewhat unreasonable.... -
yeh right...u start another topic on this addressing to 'hospitality' and i will stand along your side, otherwise stick to the '8k duet' topic and let's hav a meaningful if not 'fun' discussion shall we, be it in figures or words.Originally posted by Lim Beh Ka Li Kong:Just some extrapolation...
The same argument by some of you seems to suggest that 'relatively rich pple' (combined >$8000) shouldnt be allowed to stay in public hospitals...
Honestly, why should we deprive these pple?
Does it mean that when they earn a certain level of income, they should throw away age-old wisdom on being thrifty and saving for a rainy day???
Giving them less subsidy sounds more workable, but to deprive them of it is somewhat unreasonable.... -
you are going in loops too, you quited my saying its not simple and appeared to agree and just say its time to change mindsets again when you earlier said it was an easy/simple thing to do.Originally posted by pipipopo:Again ppl are trying to go around in loops...and again ppl just refuse to accept that its not the figures that need to be changed but the mindset. until revoked and revised, 8K income ceiling is approriate. The figure has been worked against the maximum limit of loan applicable including interest stretched to the maximum duration of repayment period.
assuming that you agree its not easy, why should changing ht emind set be incurred rather than clamouring for a change of policy.
if you don't agree then perhaps you would like to justify why its simple or perhaps put it down to difference in opinion in a subjective matter and move on?
to your points of 8k being appropriate, i'm not sure how you came baout that conclusion. were you involved in the planning or did you actually do the sums( which gives rise to questions like how you did it), or is it just an implicit trust in the government?
Again i'm afraid i don't have the data but when was the last time they evaluated the figure via the max limit etc? is it perhaps time for a review? is the criteria of max loan, max duration wrong or inappropraite?
all questions that your support of the 8k figure has raised.... perhaps there are more but i'm feeling lazy
-
The authority is rigid but they not stupid, many ppl will take the short cut ,a loop hole I think the authority know. I don't understand why we need debate so fiercely on this topic.
Many ppl have exploit all possiblilty by the loop hole. If they can earn $8k, they are smart enough to bypass the ruling. Those who kana by this ruling are single income earning way more than $8k, and they are those buying landed not condo. -
don't anyhow write...use quotes to pick up what i wrote to back up your latest claim. you are not sure how you came about with the conclusion because you never click on the CPF housing loan calculator link. In truth it has been worked and tried backwards with all the maximum parameter settings to work out the maximum figure at the individual income field....sadly the figure rounds up at 4k each which makes a combined income of 8k total and thus the '8k duet' thingy heheOriginally posted by hisoka:you are going in loops too, you quited my saying its not simple and appeared to agree and just say its time to change mindsets again when you earlier said it was an easy/simple thing to do.
assuming that you agree its not easy, why should changing ht emind set be incurred rather than clamouring for a change of policy.
if you don't agree then perhaps you would like to justify why its simple or perhaps put it down to difference in opinion in a subjective matter and move on?
to your points of 8k being appropriate, i'm not sure how you came baout that conclusion. were you involved in the planning or did you actually do the sums( which gives rise to questions like how you did it), or is it just an implicit trust in the government?
Again i'm afraid i don't have the data but when was the last time they evaluated the figure via the max limit etc? is it perhaps time for a review? is the criteria of max loan, max duration wrong or inappropraite?
all questions that your support of the 8k figure has raised.... perhaps there are more but i'm feeling lazy
either way if you stretch the loan period and pecentage to the maximum a couple with a combined income is capable of servicing a loan amount of S$500,000/-.
get your data and print it here. you want a review you can write to them dun flood here in this thread with extras that do not make any sense. going around in cirlces again right is that what everyone can do? -
case to case...T.Ryousuke if youhave wrote this earlier i would have supported you ..although we were on different sides of the thread earlier on. Take the ST article case if the cause can be justified i don't believe the authority will not work a way out for the couple. But a rigid and forceful law and statement has to be in place to hidder any higher income group from abusing the previleges thatare meant for those who are truely in need. Until the 8k figure has been reviewed again there is nothing much we can do. This thread also rooted out many individuals whom are naive, young and most probably have not been through hardships and poor living conditions. People who refuses to face up to reality.Originally posted by T.Ryousuke:The authority is rigid but they not stupid, many ppl will take the short cut ,a loop hole I think the authority know. I don't understand why we need debate so fiercely on this topic.
Many ppl have exploit all possiblilty by the loop hole. If they can earn $8k, they are smart enough to bypass the ruling. Those who kana by this ruling are single income earning way more than $8k, and they are those buying landed not condo. -
If the couple have a case they can appeal but not 100%. But we are talking in general case.
-
you're going round in circles again, perhaps you should try to take your own advice? please read carefully did i use your post to back up my claims in an earlier post.Originally posted by pipipopo:don't anyhow write...use quotes to pick up what i wrote to back up your latest claim. you are not sure how you came about with the conclusion because you never click on the CPF housing loan calculator link. In truth it has been worked and tried backwards with all the maximum parameter settings to work out the maximum figure at the individual income field....sadly the figure rounds up at 4k each which makes a combined income of 8k total and thus the '8k duet' thingy hehe
either way if you stretch the loan period and pecentage to the maximum a couple with a combined income is capable of servicing a loan amount of S$500,000/-.
get your data and print it here. you want a review you can write to them dun flood here in this thread with extras that do not make any sense. going around in cirlces again right is that what everyone can do?
my latest post b4 this has no claims if you would notice.
i agree please get your data and print it here you want to do a review and do figure dun flood here without backing.
you still haven't justified the criteria and the decisions; basically you were just restating your claims -
I'm sorry but I checked out that link and I still fail to see what it has to do with $8000 income limit?Originally posted by pipipopo:
I put in 4k (age 30) each for both couples and the maximum limit is now $530k. When I put in 8k as a single person, the maximum limit is now $580k.
If I put in 4k (age 25) each for both couples, the maximum loan is... *drum roll... $580k.
This calculator is used for financial planning to determine how much loan you can take based on your income and age. What has it got to do with HDB eligibility income ceiling???
Are you saying that those who can afford a 500k loan should not be eligible for HDB? Why 500k then? It is certainly not the average price of a new HDB flat (with or without susbsidise). Where did you the information? -
My friend works for Citibank as a credit card salesperson. He has only 4 passes at O level and is making more than 5k every month.Originally posted by T.Ryousuke:The authority is rigid but they not stupid, many ppl will take the short cut ,a loop hole I think the authority know. I don't understand why we need debate so fiercely on this topic.
Many ppl have exploit all possiblilty by the loop hole. If they can earn $8k, they are smart enough to bypass the ruling. Those who kana by this ruling are single income earning way more than $8k, and they are those buying landed not condo.
There are tons of people out there who earns more than 4k. Can all of them afford to buy private? let alone landed? I'll bet that most of them can't even squeeze out that 20% down payment.
Taking Pip's calculation;
Assuming a couple earning 4k a month can take up to max 500k loan. Which private estate today cost 500k and less? So far, the only 500k housing I know of are ECs and resales. Unless you are looking at a studio apartment, most private homes are going at $600k above.
At this rate, that poor couple can't even afford to buy a 5 room HDB resale in Bedok. Throw in parents as dependents, living expenses...
Now I'm beginning to see why they have problems.
Maybe they did stretch themselves further than they should, may not. We don't know. If they did, I am sure there's a valid reason for it. For example, why pay over $500k for a 99 year, 5 year old HDB.
But regardless of whether they buy a private or a resale. It really does leave them with not much savings. And if they are thinking of having kids. I can see why they are feeling the crunch.
I say the govt should relook this issue and remove or increase the 8k ceiling. They can also pin a age limit (like below 28 ) to avoid abuse.
I mean, here is a couple who wants to have children and genuinely has difficulties. Why not help them out. After all, the govt does want people to have more children.
Btw, just out of curiosity. Anyone knows how long that ceiling has remained at 8k? -
Seriously getting caught in the 8k bracket really sucks
You're neither rich nor poor and the HDB rules sure don't help you. -
Basically this just shows, just how much thought our gov put into the policies they implement.
And they'll make sure we don't profit without them profitting first!
-
easy right just use quote and pump in a little rubbish and claim that i go around in cirles using my words aginst me...where..pick out the sentences you expect readers to read everything...easy i can use your trick too...where i do not see it.Originally posted by hisoka:you're going round in circles again, perhaps you should try to take your own advice? please read carefully did i use your post to back up my claims in an earlier post.
my latest post b4 this has no claims if you would notice.
i agree please get your data and print it here you want to do a review and do figure dun flood here without backing.
you still haven't justified the criteria and the decisions; basically you were just restating your claims
get your data and print it here then post again..where your data to back your claim...then if u hav no data its just like what the 8k duet's doing...writing stuff without claim telling gahmen to change policy..and here u r here writing things without data backup and tellin the world u r right (just that no data to back up)...where the data?
the formula and calculator i provided justified the change...with x income you are elligible for loans up to y amount in dollars....git it ?