LHL incompetence to encourage Singaporeans to have more baby
-
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.
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? -
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.
Past policies of M/W which we the people have been discussing here of late are no longer as workable as they used to be at one time.
Should these policies be changed? If not tell us again why? That is the best way to measure your contention as stated that people wrongly condemned the PAP without facts or substance. Look at these posts I mentioned on this page for example ranging from "Should government seek refuge behind the civil libel to avoid accountability?" or "LHL Incompetence to encourage Singaporeans to have more baby".
On substance it will be found that many of the M/W past policies are no longer as effective as they were made out to be.
As for your defence of those policies will you tell us which of your rebuttal were particularly convincing. -
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? -
Actually for most executives, $$ is not the main consideration
You know the baby bonus is like pittance and not even worth having a baby for
It is not something that will attract women to have babies.
The main concern that most have I think is job security and employers tend to be 'anti-family' A lot of them have the mindset that if you have a child, you will no longer be as committed to your work.
It is this fear of losing the job, potential lost of opportunity that is holding a lot of people back.
That aside, many couples now do not live with their parents and caring of the child becomes a problem and they don't trust strangers to look after the baby.
I think more would be willing if work hours are more flexible and getting pregnant is no longer a dirty word.
I'm not for stuff like free education because there is nothing free in this world. Sure you get free education but you will end up paying more taxes.
I forgot to add that apart of the above, it is also a lifestyle choice. -
1)Coz I don't want to make false claims about the percentage of "eligible baby makers" within the workforce who have tertiary education. Hence the percentage was based on the study for the whole workforce, used as a guide.Originally posted by Gazelle:1) Why are we talking about the entire work force when majority who are >45 are not going to have any more babies regardless if they are rich, average or poor
2) Are you disputing that a better economy will not encourage more people to have babies and a recession will not make it more difficult to have babies?
2) I am pointing out the fact that the "better economy" being propagated at the moment by the government is overrated and not being felt by the general populace well enough, to shift baby making upwards on their priority list. And I didn't say anything about a recession. -
Yes, there can be free education if it is given out free.Originally posted by elindra:Actually for most executives, $$ is not the main consideration
You know the baby bonus is like pittance and not even worth having a baby for It 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.
As simple as that.
Dont come and tell me oh, nothing is free so, whatever you want , more expensive life for you.
ITs called ability or inability.
Willing or not willing.
some things were paid money many many and the reason was, only so tiny compared to GDP.
I assure you, many more babies will be born in 1 year if Free Education is implemented.
The mother or father ideally should take care of child until he/she grows up.
Thus, i support not relying on maids to bring up a child.
A child is too much a treasure to be left in the hands of a maid.
A person must not be ignorant of the amount and love, time, care and effort needed to bring up a child. Having a maid to do that is ignorant and irresponsilbe. Its convenient but a baby 's care and upbringing is not outsourceable like in business. Not everything in life is about outsourcing. This mentality flaw comes when one is too brainwashed such that they think most important thing in life is money, economy and everything can be solved by money.
Either parent must sacrfice at least 1 or 2 years to bring up a child per child.
Thus, this sacrifice and cost of opportunity can be compensated by FREE EDUCATION.
I say it again, with FREE EDUCATION, many more will produce more babies within 1 year. The FREE Education compensates the parent's lost of work and alleviates completely their burden to save enough money for their childrens' education.
This is an investment and not a cost.
Also, many are already given FREE EDUCATION here. I urge the responsible persons to approve this bill to provide FREE EDUCATION for all.
This WILL solve the baby problem.
My solution is FREE.
What is this amount compared to the GDP increase that will come from more babies in years to come?
So simple, the mudder of all solution. I present to you, ladies and gentlemen.
So easy. period. -
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.
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... -
Oh ya it is freeOriginally posted by reddressman:Yes, there can be free education if it is given out free.
As simple as that.
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. -
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?
beside that, majority of singaporeans dont pay income tax.
please dont confuse GDP with trade surplus and remember Singapore is a trading hub. -
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.
Ask any fresh U or Poly grad if they feel more optimistic about getting a higher salary as compared to 3 years ago. -
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.
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. -
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.
are you implying,
that the rest are paying for the free education of the rest? -
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?
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. -
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 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. -
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.
Among all the "hype" about a better economy, yet no significant increase in births, or birth rate, meaning (babies born to female resident ratio) also formally known as total fertility rate or TFR.
Rising property prices benefit the higher ups more than the those at the lower end of the pyramid. Firstly, if you don't own 2 units of residential assets, you cannot liquidate the one you live in. In essence, the one you live in is not an asset(depending on context of course).
Most of the construction industry dollars are going to Singaporeans/PRs? Dun know about that really, so not going there.
My point is, the govt is putting up alot of good looking abstract figures about the economy and how its doing, but then what do they have to show with regards the bread and butter issues is the common working middle class citizen? Even statistically? If what the press says is true, then other than the upper income bracket households, the rest aren't benefiting in equal proportion to the growth in the economy(if they benefit at all).
Which may not be the only factor concerning the people who want to have kids, but certainly and major one.
Take yourself for example, would you consider having kids if your household income is below3-4K a month? Or would you put it off till you can get more? -
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.
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. -
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.
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. -
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.
And it has a very high % that you will see those problems because it is seen in every single country that is heavy on social welfare.
Why are you even bringing GDP in? I'm assuming that you are saying they are not doing it because of the impact it may have on the GDP. That is granted. So you're trying to say that by having free education, even without an increase in taxes, there won't be an impact on GDP?
You won't see a change in GDP because of increase in taxes
As for Casinos, granted that there will be social ills brought in but the potential of foreign funds outweigh the potential social ills.
Whereas if you start going towards a welfare society, the chances of funds out-flowing is higher since welfare = higher taxes. -
Later they force all married woman to bear baby
later you say govt force ppl -
Wow, you basically have revealed your identity in terms of where you come from. Its alright, I pretend I don't know your identity , cybersquad.
I am with you , ok?
Free education is not a social welfare.
It is called investment.
Education is an investment.
The reason why I introduce this free solution is because I do not see any solution provided that works , meaning solving the problem.
If you cannot offer a solution, doon come and comprain to me. I am not your minster of k.bnlb. -
Australia , Singapore - all got problems. And both the same - TOO EXPENSIVE TO HAVE CHILDREN.
Australia - so what if they have the damn baby bonus .....I am not touching it . It is way too expensive to have a baby even and let alone bring up a child with the subsidies. Being single without dependencies is more beneficial.
Singapore - great place to bring a child into the safety of the police state where drugs are virtually unheard of and only occasional gang fights happen but also with wages like sh*t for commoners , how to support a baby? Let alone plan for your child's future.
If I have a kid , I better be a millionaire. And he/she better damn well get a HECs place for university - I didn't migrate to pay full fee for their damn university education.