5k/mth not enough for the family!
-
i realise dat when having two children, best to have them wif an age difference of 6 years apart. cos it would be hell if at the same time u have to pay more for education fees such as one child taking o lvl while the other A lvl. or both children attending university education.
definitely unaffordable!
on the other hand i feel tis engineer will suffer but he is helping singapore of the birth rate.
-
everyone always 钱�够用 1 la
-
ask him to fly kites lah.. 5K not enough hahaha...ask him move to africa lah.. sure got enough lah
-
$5k amonth enough meh? Depends on what lifestyle you want lor. If want live comfortably, a family of 6 need 10k I suppose. $5k a month for single is sufficient la... ppl earning $5k a month n left with not much by month end will understand my point...
Gd luck to him
-
The problem with Singapore, and the source of so much angst among fellow Singaporeans, is that it is both a city and a country. I’ve lived in both New York and London, and the fact is that a large proportion of people (at least half from my own personal experience) living in these 2 “global” cities were not born there specifically (though many of them were born in the country).
Vibrant cities attracts people to go there to live and work and play. But it also implies that there is a large turnover of population, as is indeed the case in both New York and London. People flock to these cities because the pay is higher, the lifestyle is more exciting, the career options are greater etc. Many of the people who flock there also do not stay forever. But it also means these cities are much more expensive and cramped than other territories just outside them.
In a broad sense, the situation in Singapore is actually not very different when seen from this perspective. What is different about Singapore is that it is both a city and a country.
You see a person born in London who might prefer a cheaper and less exciting lifestyle for whatever reason could escape to Wales or Cornwall without having to leave the country. In these places, a London pension or even small government handouts can go a long way because they are so much cheaper. Singaporeans do not have that choice. If you don’t want the city life, you have to leave Singapore or you’re forced into a marginal existence because you simply can’t afford to fully enjoy the vibrant but expensive lifestyle.
So a Singaporean who wants a slower pace of life and a bigger house is forced to move to Australia or NZ, or if he doesn’t move he will constantly feel aggrieved about how “unfair” the government treats him. If Singapore were part of Malaysia, for example, this person could move to Trengganu or something. After selling his HDB in Singapore, he could buy a massive beach-front bungalow in Trengganu, and enjoy a much cheaper lifestyle.
So perhaps the practical way to solve the problem that Singapore is both a city and a country is maybe that we need to re-merge with Malaysia.
-
Originally posted by Camb76:
The problem with Singapore, and the source of so much angst among fellow Singaporeans, is that it is both a city and a country. I’ve lived in both New York and London, and the fact is that a large proportion of people (at least half from my own personal experience) living in these 2 “global” cities were not born there specifically (though many of them were born in the country).
Vibrant cities attracts people to go there to live and work and play. But it also implies that there is a large turnover of population, as is indeed the case in both New York and London. People flock to these cities because the pay is higher, the lifestyle is more exciting, the career options are greater etc. Many of the people who flock there also do not stay forever. But it also means these cities are much more expensive and cramped than other territories just outside them.
In a broad sense, the situation in Singapore is actually not very different when seen from this perspective. What is different about Singapore is that it is both a city and a country.
You see a person born in London who might prefer a cheaper and less exciting lifestyle for whatever reason could escape to Wales or Cornwall without having to leave the country. In these places, a London pension or even small government handouts can go a long way because they are so much cheaper. Singaporeans do not have that choice. If you don’t want the city life, you have to leave Singapore or you’re forced into a marginal existence because you simply can’t afford to fully enjoy the vibrant but expensive lifestyle.
So a Singaporean who wants a slower pace of life and a bigger house is forced to move to Australia or NZ, or if he doesn’t move he will constantly feel aggrieved about how “unfair” the government treats him. If Singapore were part of Malaysia, for example, this person could move to Trengganu or something. After selling his HDB in Singapore, he could buy a massive beach-front bungalow in Trengganu, and enjoy a much cheaper lifestyle.
So perhaps the practical way to solve the problem that Singapore is both a city and a country is maybe that we need to re-merge with Malaysia.
You made some very valid points and I have learned much from reading your post.
However re-merging with Malaysia whilst practical is not realistic at least not in the near future.
Also it is not an option for the average Joe to migrate. And i concede such as yerself that Singapore is unique in the sense that it is a city/country.
As such perhaps the floodgates should not be open so wide for foreigners to migrate to Singapore. And the low income should recieve an artificial income boost from the govt for them to survive in this "expensive" city ..... afterall they don't have options.
-
competitive society these days..
-
Originally posted by Genie99a:
You made some very valid points and I have learned much from reading your post.
However re-merging with Malaysia whilst practical is not realistic at least not in the near future.
Also it is not an option for the average Joe to migrate. And i concede such as yerself that Singapore is unique in the sense that it is a city/country.
As such perhaps the floodgates should not be open so wide for foreigners to migrate to Singapore. And the low income should recieve an artificial income boost from the govt for them to survive in this "expensive" city ..... afterall they don't have options.
They did get a "boost" to continue their struggle. The average low income household will get maybe around $1400 (dad and mum only, and forget the stupid ST report of $2300). This is at most 1 mth of salary for them.
Yet it is the single parent families (divorced or one parent passed away) that are the ones we should be more concerned about. They might only get $750 at most, and I don't see how this can help them much...
-
$5k amonth enough meh? Depends on what lifestyle you want lor. If want live comfortably, a family of 6 need 10k I suppose. $5k a month for single is sufficient la... ppl earning $5k a month n left with not much by month end will understand my point...
Wow.... since I do't earn anywhere even near half of $5K..... I must be really really suffering lor....
The solution is to watch your spending...... If you were to give me $10K every mth..... I also say not enough. When it comes to spending money..... IS THERE EVER ENOUGH
-
Yup, it's never enough. That's y it voice down to the lifestyle each individual is looking for. When I eran $2k a month, I find it not enough, then when I earn $3k a month, lifestyle change a little, still not eough. As you earn more, ppl around you earn more, lifestyle changes. so it's never enough.. I am not saying not earning or half of it will die.. Different income group have different spending habits and patterns.. Mid income wants a colourful lifestyle, lower mid income just get to past by... No 1 has enough.. Only the rich will have enough.
-
Yup, it's never enough. That's y it voice down to the lifestyle each individual is looking for. When I eran $2k a month, I find it not enough, then when I earn $3k a month, lifestyle change a little, still not eough. As you earn more, ppl around you earn more, lifestyle changes. so it's never enough.. I am not saying not earning or half of it will die.. Different income group have different spending habits and patterns.. Mid income wants a colourful lifestyle, lower mid income just get to past by... No 1 has enough.. Only the rich will have enough.
Sadly.... I doubt even the 'Rich' will know how much is enough.
Bill Gates had been titled "The World Richest Man"...... that didn't stop him from just cashing in his shares in MS and just live life. The only good thing is that he did donate alot of his own cash....
-
if you don't budget your money no matter how much like say $1000,000 1mth also not enough la wah lao!
-
Which goes back to my question..... HOW DO YOU DEFINE THE WORD - ENOUGH.
Enough as in -
*4Room HDB
*No shortage of food & clothing
*1 family holiday a year to nearby places
*Children goes to school
*Some money leftover...
OR
*Condo/Landed property
*Only the best from restaurant and branded clothing
*2 - 3 holidays a year to USA, Europe.... etc
*Children must go SAP or International School
*Must have lots of money leftover
*Car (MPV/SUV)
If you only earn $5K..... which is the one you think you could afford
Please use Brain and think..... 
Yalor, so hao lian, have everythings on right hand but paid them on the left hand end of the mth.
Anyway, welome to Singapore.
-
$5000/month enough????? Some people with around $3 million/yr or $250 000/month also feel not enough.... Perhaps these overpaid millionaires should put things into perspective...
-
Originally posted by eagle:
They did get a "boost" to continue their struggle. The average low income household will get maybe around $1400 (dad and mum only, and forget the stupid ST report of $2300). This is at most 1 mth of salary for them.
Yet it is the single parent families (divorced or one parent passed away) that are the ones we should be more concerned about. They might only get $750 at most, and I don't see how this can help them much...
It is good that there is progress bro.... but seriously $1.4k income for a household is not nearly enuf. I would expect 2.2k-2.5k as the bare minimum. But still progress is good .... one small step in the right direction
.The older generation worked when $10(now) was $1 back then. Now thru the erosion of inflation the savings they have prepared for retirement has shrunk. That culmulated with the appreciation of the cost of land thru the years.
They were the workforce when Singapore was struggling to be a 1st world nation. Seriously feel that money should be cut out of that damn golden goose and given to them.... and i don't care about the golden goose growing skinny, budget for it. And reaping golden eggs in the distant future is not a concern to them ..... cos they will be DEAD..... they want to see the $ before they die.
-
The real question is if one earn 5k per month , why would he want to get married
-
Originally posted by Genie99a:
It is good that there is progress bro.... but seriously $1.4k income for a household is not nearly enuf. I would expect 2.2k-2.5k as the bare minimum. But still progress is good .... one small step in the right direction.The older generation worked when $10(now) was $1 back then. Now thru the erosion of inflation the savings they have prepared for retirement has shrunk. That culmulated with the appreciation of the cost of land thru the years.
They were the workforce when Singapore was struggling to be a 1st world nation. Seriously feel that money should be cut out of that damn golden goose and given to them.... and i don't care about the golden goose growing skinny, budget for it. And reaping golden eggs in the distant future is not a concern to them ..... cos they will be DEAD..... they want to see the $ before they die.
Seriously, if the packaged was skewed such that people over age 65 that are extremely needy get $2k while the rest of us get $100 (PAP will still want to buy some votes), I wonder how many will complain. I won't.
I can imagine that for $2k, these poor people will have enough to live for near to half a year.