Nah...the same can be said that you are blindly condemning PAP and the Lee families. Do you think that if Dr. Chee were to take over as PM, Singapore will be making more babies? Maybe the would "Chee" might get you excited, but not me.Originally posted by robertteh:This is yet another confirmation that you are only blindly supporting whtever the government based on their own expediency losing touch with the ground or any rationale.
Although the perpetrators of wrongs seem to be responsible for their wrongs the supporters might be more guility as without them the government might have changed and corrected their wrongs earlier. Think.
1) Why are we talking about the entire work force when majority who are >45 are not going to have any more babies regardless if they are rich, average or poorOriginally posted by Jontst78:a) edited to "many", auto-correct glitch
b) Yes, there are fresh grads earning a higher salary.
Workers with a tertiary education only make up about 10-15%(give or take a few). And those newly graduated only make up a small percentage of the total number of those in the workforce with a tertiary education.
Fresh grads the last couple of years earning higher wages than their seniors, doesn't discount the fact that the majority of lower and middle income households do not benefit(if at all) from the growth in the economy. Which has been published in local press several times.
When a couple are striving to make ends meet or even striving for a more comfortable life, having babies is not up front on the list of priorities.
Study the posts again by many forumers in response to this kind of reasoning bordering on M/W is always right regarding various issues and problems raised either by the media or the forumers themselves.Originally posted by Gazelle:Nah...the same can be said that you are blindly condemning PAP and the Lee families. Do you think that if Dr. Chee were to take over as PM, Singapore will be making more babies? Maybe the would "Chee" might get you excited, but not me.
1)Coz I don't want to make false claims about the percentage of "eligible baby makers" within the workforce who have tertiary education. Hence the percentage was based on the study for the whole workforce, used as a guide.Originally posted by Gazelle:1) Why are we talking about the entire work force when majority who are >45 are not going to have any more babies regardless if they are rich, average or poor
2) Are you disputing that a better economy will not encourage more people to have babies and a recession will not make it more difficult to have babies?
Yes, there can be free education if it is given out free.Originally posted by elindra:Actually for most executives, $$ is not the main consideration
You know the baby bonus is like pittance and not even worth having a baby forIt is not something that will attract women to have babies.
The main concern that most have I think is job security and employers tend to be 'anti-family' A lot of them have the mindset that if you have a child, you will no longer be as committed to your work.
It is this fear of losing the job, potential lost of opportunity that is holding a lot of people back.
That aside, many couples now do not live with their parents and caring of the child becomes a problem and they don't trust strangers to look after the baby.
I think more would be willing if work hours are more flexible and getting pregnant is no longer a dirty word.
I'm not for stuff like free education because there is nothing free in this world. Sure you get free education but you will end up paying more taxes.
Precisely..Originally posted by Jontst78:1)Coz I don't want to make false claims about the percentage of "eligible baby makers" within the workforce who have tertiary education. Hence the percentage was based on the study for the whole workforce, used as a guide.
2) I am pointing out the fact that the "better economy" being propagated at the moment by the government is overrated and not being felt by the general populace well enough, to shift baby making upwards on their priority list. And I didn't say anything about a recession.
Oh ya it is freeOriginally posted by reddressman:Yes, there can be free education if it is given out free.
As simple as that.
well, share options, shares all went up...bonuses, employment..etc etc all these go up..don't think its fair to say that its only good for them and not the people at large..perhaps its a section that are left behind for the past couple of years...Originally posted by HyperFocal:Precisely..
When they say the economy is good, "booming", "growing" and all that,.. it is only so for them.. not the people at large...
Otherwise, how can it be, when Income Gap keeps widening while there's ongoing economic boom?
We all know they love painting beautiful pictures...
small population = small income tax revenue.Originally posted by reddressman:what is free education for a tiny population when it is only so little compared to the GDP?
Dont they know this is called investment in its own people?
who are the general populace you are referring too over here? What is your sampling size?Originally posted by Jontst78:1)Coz I don't want to make false claims about the percentage of "eligible baby makers" within the workforce who have tertiary education. Hence the percentage was based on the study for the whole workforce, used as a guide.
2) I am pointing out the fact that the "better economy" being propagated at the moment by the government is overrated and not being felt by the general populace well enough, to shift baby making upwards on their priority list. And I didn't say anything about a recession.
Pardon me, when I said general populace, meaning the middle+lower income group, which forms substantial majority of the households.Originally posted by Gazelle:who are the general populace you are referring too over here? Ask any fresh U or Poly grad if they feel more optimistic about getting a higher salary as compared to 3 years ago.
So, may I ask you,Originally posted by elindra:Oh ya it is free
Then you will see them revising the income tax and other taxes
You really think the countries that give out free education is really free?
Maybe you should go compare the income tax levels.
You can say that it is still a good idea because the rich will be subsidising the 'poor'.
All I can say is, just don't get caught in the middle.
It's always the tax payers who are paying or subsidising for the free education.Originally posted by reddressman:So, may I ask you,
are you implying,
that the rest are paying for the free education of the rest?
I am asking you how do you know that they ' the general populace' have not benefited from the improving economy? I am asking if you have done a sampling to support your argument.Originally posted by Jontst78:Pardon me, when I said general populace, meaning the middle+lower income group, which forms substantial majority of the households.
Asking them what they feel doesn't constitute as fact.
Purely for example - If I feel confident that you are an @sshole, does that make you one? Doesn't right?
What I do know for fact is that, middle income and lower income households are hit harder and have reaped proportionately less benefits so far in this so called "improving economy". As I am sure, as well read as you are, would have come across several such article and studies in the local and foreign press/media.
I'd rather my tax dollars go to free education than into the pockets of well-heeled politicians.Originally posted by elindra:It's always the tax payers who are paying or subsidising for the free education.
When there are more social benefits, you will have to pay more income tax. It's a worldwide thing.
I don't want a situation in Singapore like in Canada
For example in Canada the natives have free education
They don't work, they drink, do drugs and breed like rats
Because they are natives they get free education and a monthly 'wage' just because they are natives.
You think the cost of education and money comes free? It's all from the tax payers.
And if you have this situation in Singapore, there may be people with a crutch mentality (which tends to spread quickly) that think that if I am not in this income bracket, I don't have to pay income tax or even a nominal amount of money and yet at the same time enjoy all these benefits like free education for example.
So yes, people who actually work for a living will in the end be slaves to people who do not want to work because every social benefit will be subjected to abuse.
May I know who much are you earning now?Originally posted by rooki:I'd rather my tax dollars go to free education than into the pockets of well-heeled politicians.
No surveys done. My argument is based on released figures in the press by the govt. Percentage of Lower income households have risen. Lower income households get a dip in average salaries. The higher income groups are the top beneficiaries of the growth in the economy, even in terms of proportion of gain(s). All the above are facts that are published by local press, not even mentioning about foreign press yet.Originally posted by Gazelle:I am asking you how do you know that they ' the general populace' have not benefited from the improving economy? I am asking if you have done a sampling to support your argument.
I could also say that the general polulance has benefited from the economic boom. e.g. we are seeing more cars on the road and orchard road are always packed with people, rising s$ has made imported goods alot cheaper, property prices are rising, stock market is booming, construction industry has comes alive, and tourism industry is booming.
Erhmmm tax money goes into the country's coffersOriginally posted by rooki:I'd rather my tax dollars go to free education than into the pockets of well-heeled politicians.
You are saying that there is 0.1% chance something else problem may come with free ed. So, doon implement it?Originally posted by elindra:Erhmmm tax money goes into the country's coffers
Not into the politician pockets
Sure we pay them with our tax money it is a relatively small %.
However, with a social benefit like I'm sure you know that a lot of rich foreigners like to park their money in Singapore because of the low taxes.
With an increase in income tax, we become a less attractive place for them to park their foreign cash
At the same time, the rich might feel that they don't want to subsidise the poor and channel their funds out
It's not something as easy as "Let's provide free education" and *poof* the problem disappears. There might be other problems that may arise from it.
Anyway, we are going out of point.
I think more women would be willing to give birth if their workplace are more pro-family and they will still enjoy the same opportunities as those without children as long as they perform as well or better. That is if the decision not to have kids is not a lifestyle decision.
Once there is social welfare it is not a 0.1% that taxes will increase but 100%Originally posted by reddressman:You are saying that there is 0.1% chance something else problem may come with free ed. So, doon implement it?
Like this, you are making things too easy for me.
Like this, you should also say, by having 2 casinos, GDP may grow but also they chance of it introducing hum may also be there. So ? Why is it implemented?
someone said oh increasing salary of our scroolastics bombastics is nothing much compared to the GDP.
Now, why cannot we also say the same for solution to increase new borns? That is, FREE EDUCATION for the sacrifice made by the mother and fathers?
How much is a talent cost?
Lets hypothetically say $120K a month as a minimum.
Now, how many children can be given free education with this monthly sum ?
In 1 year, how many children have we provided free education by cutting 1 headcount that costs $120K a month?
120K not much for GDP.
FREE Education should also be not much compared to GDP.