Think its to encourage Singaporeans to get marriedOriginally posted by oxford mushroom:Why should newly weds get subsidized new flats when single professionals who pay far more taxes than most Singaporeans have to buy older flats at higher prices from the resale market?
Of course new HDB flat prices should be based on market prices of resale flats. Why should some folks get to earn so much by selling their government-subsidized flats to singles at the market rate? I say get rid of the subsidy completely.
So why should Singaporeans have babies then?Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Why should newly weds get subsidized new flats when single professionals who pay far more taxes than most Singaporeans have to buy older flats at higher prices from the resale market?
Of course new HDB flat prices should be based on market prices of resale flats. Why should some folks get to earn so much by selling their government-subsidized flats to singles at the market rate? I say get rid of the subsidy completely.
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:Why should newly weds get subsidized new flats when single professionals who pay far more taxes than most Singaporeans have to buy older flats at higher prices from the resale market?
Of course new HDB flat prices should be based on market prices of resale flats. Why should some folks get to earn so much by selling their government-subsidized flats to singles at the market rate? I say get rid of the subsidy completely.
Oh it does , if you cannot afford a roof over your head - then why should you have a child ?Originally posted by frakfrakfrak:You stupid fuck. It doesn't matter anymore if Singaporeans have babies or not.![]()

Originally posted by maurizio13:Thanks for providing the account relating to HDB sale. However to my mind, this accounts only reflect the interest incomes when are extra profits made over the land and construction. If we add this extra interest income HDB has made even more profits than disclosed.
I only have one issue with the losses of HDB on it's claimed sale of "subsidized" flats.
1) The majority of expenses incurred which resulted in the losses is from loans made from the government to itself. The financial impact of the government loan interest is around $1.5 billions, which could have been the profits made on the "subsidized" flats sale. It's one way of extracting the profits and showing to the public that losses were made from the subsidized sales and indeed "real subsidies" were given, therefore the huge losses.
Does it make sense to make a loan to myself and charge myself interest? If I have control of ownership of Company A and Company B, I can shift my profits around by charging higher interest for Company A (higher profits) and shifting my profits to Company B (lower profits). Ultimately, Company B which was suppose to be making a loss, makes a hefty profit.
The "interest charges" paid by HDB to the government of $1.5 billions is alot alot alot of interest.
"FRS 27 - Intragroup balances should be eliminated in full (para 24).
To illustrate, assume that P Ltd gives a loan of $1,000,000 to its subsidiary, S Ltd. In their respective balance sheets, P Ltd correctly carries a loan receivable account, and S Ltd correctly carries a loan payable account. However, in the consolidated financial statement, [b]where P Ltd and S Ltd are treated as a single economic entity, it does not make sense to show that the entity borrows from or lend to itself. Thus, in the consolidation process, the intra-group balances (that is, the intra-group loan payable and receivable) should be eliminated in full." (Ng, 2005)
Source: http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10297p.nsf/ImageView/FS0607/$file/HDB-fy06(FS).pdf
References:
1) E.J., Ng, A practical guide to financial reporting standards (Singapore), 2005, CCH.
[/b]
Originally posted by googoomuck:sigh... a freehold condo built on private land in downtown Bangkok or KL cost so little compare to here...
[b]It's confirmed: New HDB flat not subsidized
[/b]
I am still trying to figure out how the HDB or government is making a loss selling those "subsidized flats".Originally posted by robertteh:Thanks for providing the account relating to HDB sale. However to my mind, this accounts only reflect the interest incomes when are extra profits made over the land and construction. If we add this extra interest income HDB has made even more profits than disclosed.
The HDB account does not include the land sale profits made from lands by SLA which are taken into the consolidated account acquired under the Land Acquisition Act with taxpayers' monies amounting to S$20 billions for the period 1900-2000 alone.
Effectively lands are at zero value since lands were paid by taxpayers. So when HDB flats are built on these acquired lands government should be selling HDB flats to the taxpaying citizens at cost of construction. If it sells so much as above construction cost government will be making a profit.
If government sells the HDB flats at market value or close to market value with a discount it will be making profit one more time on the land. That is my case that government has been profiteering and making double land from its citizens and HDB and minister Mah are telling lies when they say government is subsidizing the public housing.
Did you ever ask yourself if the land which HDB used to build their flats actually belongs to the government or HDB?Originally posted by maurizio13:I am still trying to figure out how the HDB or government is making a loss selling those "subsidized flats".
They are profiting from the land sales and interest charges.
Huh???Originally posted by Gazelle:Did you ever ask yourself if the land which HDB used to build their flats actually belongs to the government or HDB?
Ultimately they are both government entities, but they serve difference purpose and function.Originally posted by maurizio13:Huh???
I am sorry, you mean HDB and government are two different entities???
Obviously you have no understanding of company structure in groups.Originally posted by Gazelle:Ultimately they are both government entities, but they serve difference purpose and function.
Just like if your family's name is dick, you can expect all dicks to have entitlement to your wife isnt it?
just joking!!
Can a Singtel staffs get free flight on SIA ?Originally posted by maurizio13:Obviously you have no understanding of company structure in groups.
You are correct in stating that if your surname is D|ck, your father, mother, brothers, sisters and cousins have no entitlement to your wife. But this is company structure we are dealing in, not personal structure. A company is a legal entity with the right to own properties and other companies. Whereas you as Mr. Dick cannot own another person.![]()
it is indeed a left and right pocket transaction however I would rather the money goes into state fund rather than HDB buying plasma TV, leather sofa etcOriginally posted by Seant7:It simply a matter of transferring money from the left pocket to the right pocket. Left pocket is incurring a deficit but right pocket is making the mother of all profit. But ultimately those are still my money.
We look at the government who are doing the transaction with us and not how they transfer the money between different government departments.
For as long as we sees fail to see outside the scope of HDB account, we will never get the bigger pictures.
Frankly, I don't expect you to understand all these, because you have limited knowledge about accounting, you have limited intelligence and you only support the government's view.Originally posted by Gazelle:Can a Singtel staffs get free flight on SIA ?
Can you SIA get free office space from Capitaland?
Can HDB office get free power supply from Singapore Power?
Over to you dick!!