Originally posted by TemplarKnight:wat osim horse? look more like for woman riding one. Especially can find no man to ride...hahahaha.
if you want to be be that shinning knight, osim will make a massaging saddle for you
be that SHINNING knight for wat? later kena reap/rape also duno wat happen. Better stay inside my temple and continue be temple knights. At least we KPKB within our confine area..... Sssshhhhh.. Dont talk too loud. Walls got ears. Later temple also have to tear down.....
Every citizen should be thankful that there is a deficit. I for one am glad the President ordered the treasury vault to open. The representatives of the people had been saying the money should be use for rainy days.
Well, it's pouring now.
The issue now is NOT kpkb on them, accusing them of 'mismanagement' or what nonsense potshots some guys frustrated would like to throw. It's a global recession now, not a fault of our own making.
The issue is HOW THE MONEY SHOULD BE SPENT. These are not the govt's money. They are your forefathers and your money. We all pay taxes in one form or another.
In this crisis, whereby people are hoarding than spending, it's only right that we demand our money be used in cases where it can stimulate our moribund economy and help prop up companies that create jobs, and NOT to feed CEOs of the likes of Durai, where the staff and clients are starved but he continues to enjoy an extravagant lifestyle.
For companies seeking help, Whether the company is govt owned or linked, if it fails to put our citizens first, then it should NOT be relying on OUR money to help.
They should sack its management team first for failing to have a contingency plan to counter the subprime crisis one year ago, and not retrench singaporeans. These companies should be allowed to fail, and its talents be absorbed by another company.
Our money must NOT be used 'across the board' for everyone, but only as targeted asistance - that which will bring us the best value so that our money can grow and be saved again for another rainy day and for our future generations.
My 2cts worth.
cheers... i support your view
Originally posted by xtreyier:Every citizen should be thankful that there is a deficit. I for one am glad the President ordered the treasury vault to open. The representatives of the people had been saying the money should be use for rainy days.
Well, it's pouring now.
The issue now is NOT kpkb on them, accusing them of 'mismanagement' or what nonsense potshots some guys frustrated would like to throw. It's a global recession now, not a fault of our own making.
The issue is HOW THE MONEY SHOULD BE SPENT. These are not the govt's money. They are your forefathers and your money. We all pay taxes in one form or another.
In this crisis, whereby people are hoarding than spending, it's only right that we demand our money be used in cases where it can stimulate our moribund economy and help prop up companies that create jobs, and NOT to feed CEOs of the likes of Durai, where the staff and clients are starved but he continues to enjoy an extravagant lifestyle.
For companies seeking help, Whether the company is govt owned or linked, if it fails to put our citizens first, then it should NOT be relying on OUR money to help.
They should sack its management team first for failing to have a contingency plan to counter the subprime crisis one year ago, and not retrench singaporeans. These companies should be allowed to fail, and its talents be absorbed by another company.
Our money must NOT be used 'across the board' for everyone, but only as targeted asistance - that which will bring us the best value so that our money can grow and be saved again for another rainy day and for our future generations.
My 2cts worth.
Take yr 2 cts and put inside my piggy bank. Saving is the best policy.
Originally posted by TemplarKnight:cheers... i support your view
Uncle, which view u supported, front or rear?
I like from the rear...hahahah....
I agree with you that the top people should be held accountable when they screw up.
They should sack its management team first for failing to have a contingency plan to counter the subprime crisis one year ago, and not retrench singaporeans. These companies should be allowed to fail, and its talents be absorbed by another company.
hahaha.... ghamen sack ghamen staff? quite unheard of leh... especially family of the unholy trinity
Originally posted by angel7030:
Take yr 2 cts and put inside my piggy bank. Saving is the best policy.
Save? NOw? In this crisis? Sure, name me your bank and i will wire my money over. But it will only be 1 cts that i will save.
The other 1 cts will be SPENT - to keep it circulating in the economy.
DONT look down on the humble 1cts, if every citizen (3.2million est) does this, it means $32,000 to the economy! Better than nothing now, which the cock is crowing now for everyone to hoard money.
There would be another $32,000 in your bank, which you will have to loan out to strong companies to pay interest for my 1cts.
If this is done, extrapoliated with bigger amounts, what financial crisis would we be facing?
Originally posted by xtreyier:
Save? NOw? In this crisis? Sure, name me your bank and i will wire my money over. But it will only be 1 cts that i will save.
The other 1 cts will be SPENT - to keep it circulating in the economy.
DONT look down on the humble 1cts, if every citizen (3.2million est) does this, it means $32,000 to the economy! Better than nothing now, which the cock is crowing now for everyone to hoard money.
There would be another $32,000 in your bank, which you will have to loan out to strong companies to pay interest for my 1cts.
If this is done, extrapoliated with bigger amounts, what financial crisis would we be facing?
if 3.2m people sending you 1cent and they have to spend 15 min doing that
you gain $32,000 but the economy lost $16m spend 800,000 hours on average $20.0 per/hour salary
Originally posted by angel7030:
Take yr 2 cts and put inside my piggy bank. Saving is the best policy.
ha ha ha, angel 2 cts not enough especially now, ask for more to save in your piggy bank.
Originally posted by ArtBoon:I agree with you that the top people should be held accountable when they screw up.
They should in fact by right be held accountable. I am sure they do have periodical checks and through these checks they more or less can predict if the deficit is going to be that worse than before. From here, they can do all they want to help. Guess their focus is not on keeping the deficit low or do something to get rid of the deficit.
Not sure is there any more that they are keeping away from us. REmeber figures can always be manipulated. Since they have made known the deficit, let us all observe to see how and what they are going to do about it.
Deficit surface after the greedy lee hsien loong overpay himself and his ministers obscene salary.
just read this..aiya, sebei cham..
"THEY once lived in this 350-sq-m semi-detached, house along Upper Serangoon Road.
Then an outstanding home loan forced them to sell it and the elderly couple now live in a rented HDB flat.
Madam Ng, 56, recounted how they had to vacate their landed property, where they had lived for 31 years.
She now works in the sales line. She spoke on condition that we use only her surname.
She said that her husband, who is in his 70s, gets upset whenever the topic is brought up.
The financing scheme seemed like a safe bet to the couple back in 1997.
They were to receive $2,000 a month from NTUC Income under its newly-launched reverse mortgage scheme.
But things soured when the valuation of their house dropped substantially and they were forced to sell their house in 2006 to repay the loan.
Ironic twist
What's more, the couple now have to pay Income about $630 a month over 10 years to cover the balance outstanding on the loan.
Madam Ng still has newspaper clippings of the scheme back then. It was mooted by the government to provide another option for older owners to get some income from their homes, without having to move out.
NTUC Income's website says of its reverse mortgage scheme: 'Unlock the cash value of your home. Provides regular cash for retirees.'
It offers an income stream for cash-poor but asset-rich retirees, who can use their houses as security for a loan dispensed in monthly cash payouts.
Madam Ng attended a seminar by Income in 1997 which was held in an auditorium.
The loan worked like this: Their property was valued at $2.1 million. Income could lend them up to 80 per cent of the valuation or about $1.68 million.
This 80 per cent loan amount is also known as the loan-to-value limit.
Income also settled an overdraft of $495,000 which the couple had taken from a bank, using the house as collateral.
Then taking into account Madam Ng's husband's life expectancy, the property value and the interest rate of 5.9 per cent per annum at that point, Income calculated that he would be paid $2,000 a month at that point.
Madam Ng said they signed up for the scheme a few days after attending the talk.
The letter of offer did not state the number of years they would receive the monthly payments, as this depended on many factors that could change.
Payment based on property market
The couple's understanding from the talk, and from the two officers they met when the deal was signed, was that Income would adjust the monthly payment accordingly when the property market went up or down, said Madam Ng.
They received the $2,000 monthly until 2004, when Income informed them that they were approaching the 80 per cent limit - as their property value had dropped sharply.
Income reduced their payout to $1,750 in August that year.
'After that, the amount dropped every few months, to $1,500, then $1,250, then $1,000, until it finally hit $300,' said Madam Ng.
The reason was that the valuation of the house had dropped. This had been explained to the couple earlier.
In June 2006, Income's lawyer said in a letter that the loan amount due had 'exceeded 80 per cent of the market value'.
The payments stopped from July 2006.
Madam Ng said she was told by Income that the valuation was about $1.1 million at that time.
Income calculated that the couple owed almost $1.05 million. This included the $495,000 which Income had paid earlier to clear their overdraft, plus the monthly payouts they had received and the compounded interest on these payouts.
As the couple did not have the means to repay the loan, they agreed to move out in August and sell the property.
Madam Ng said she had hoped the property market would pick up. But no one could tell when the market would turn around.
'We desperately tried to sell the house on our own, but the highest offer we had was $900,000. We had no choice but to move out,' she recalled.
Income eventually found a buyer who paid $1.05 million in November 2006.
Then in July last year, Income wrote to them stating that there was still a shortfall of almost $55,000.
It allowed them to pay in instalments - $250 a month for the first year and $630 thereafter for the next nine years.
Madam Ng said she deeply regretted not selling the property in 1997. But, at that time, they wanted to both keep the house and get regular cash payments.
Like others who had overextended themselves, the couple was hurt by the bursting of the property bubble.
If property values had kept rising, they could have sold the house, paid off the loan and have enough left over to buy a smaller home.
But when values dived, there was not enough to even pay off the loan.
'This was the worst financial decision we have ever made,' said Madam Ng.
Adjusting to the situation
The couple and their son, who is in his 30s, have since been moving from one place to another, either staying with close relatives or renting flats.
Madam Ng did not have to work previously, but she now works part-time trying to make ends meet.
While her husband, who had already retired when he took up the scheme, began driving a taxi at first.
He now takes on any odd jobs he can get."
Originally posted by angel7030:just read this..aiya, sebei cham..
"THEY once lived in this 350-sq-m semi-detached, house along Upper Serangoon Road.
Then an outstanding home loan forced them to sell it and the elderly couple now live in a rented HDB flat.
Madam Ng, 56, recounted how they had to vacate their landed property, where they had lived for 31 years.
She now works in the sales line. She spoke on condition that we use only her surname.
She said that her husband, who is in his 70s, gets upset whenever the topic is brought up.
The financing scheme seemed like a safe bet to the couple back in 1997.
They were to receive $2,000 a month from NTUC Income under its newly-launched reverse mortgage scheme.
But things soured when the valuation of their house dropped substantially and they were forced to sell their house in 2006 to repay the loan.
Ironic twist
What's more, the couple now have to pay Income about $630 a month over 10 years to cover the balance outstanding on the loan.
Madam Ng still has newspaper clippings of the scheme back then. It was mooted by the government to provide another option for older owners to get some income from their homes, without having to move out.
NTUC Income's website says of its reverse mortgage scheme: 'Unlock the cash value of your home. Provides regular cash for retirees.'
It offers an income stream for cash-poor but asset-rich retirees, who can use their houses as security for a loan dispensed in monthly cash payouts.
Madam Ng attended a seminar by Income in 1997 which was held in an auditorium.
The loan worked like this: Their property was valued at $2.1 million. Income could lend them up to 80 per cent of the valuation or about $1.68 million.
This 80 per cent loan amount is also known as the loan-to-value limit.
Income also settled an overdraft of $495,000 which the couple had taken from a bank, using the house as collateral.
Then taking into account Madam Ng's husband's life expectancy, the property value and the interest rate of 5.9 per cent per annum at that point, Income calculated that he would be paid $2,000 a month at that point.
Madam Ng said they signed up for the scheme a few days after attending the talk.
The letter of offer did not state the number of years they would receive the monthly payments, as this depended on many factors that could change.
Payment based on property market
The couple's understanding from the talk, and from the two officers they met when the deal was signed, was that Income would adjust the monthly payment accordingly when the property market went up or down, said Madam Ng.
They received the $2,000 monthly until 2004, when Income informed them that they were approaching the 80 per cent limit - as their property value had dropped sharply.
Income reduced their payout to $1,750 in August that year.
'After that, the amount dropped every few months, to $1,500, then $1,250, then $1,000, until it finally hit $300,' said Madam Ng.
The reason was that the valuation of the house had dropped. This had been explained to the couple earlier.
In June 2006, Income's lawyer said in a letter that the loan amount due had 'exceeded 80 per cent of the market value'.
The payments stopped from July 2006.
Madam Ng said she was told by Income that the valuation was about $1.1 million at that time.
Income calculated that the couple owed almost $1.05 million. This included the $495,000 which Income had paid earlier to clear their overdraft, plus the monthly payouts they had received and the compounded interest on these payouts.
As the couple did not have the means to repay the loan, they agreed to move out in August and sell the property.
Madam Ng said she had hoped the property market would pick up. But no one could tell when the market would turn around.
'We desperately tried to sell the house on our own, but the highest offer we had was $900,000. We had no choice but to move out,' she recalled.
Income eventually found a buyer who paid $1.05 million in November 2006.
Then in July last year, Income wrote to them stating that there was still a shortfall of almost $55,000.
It allowed them to pay in instalments - $250 a month for the first year and $630 thereafter for the next nine years.
Madam Ng said she deeply regretted not selling the property in 1997. But, at that time, they wanted to both keep the house and get regular cash payments.
Like others who had overextended themselves, the couple was hurt by the bursting of the property bubble.
If property values had kept rising, they could have sold the house, paid off the loan and have enough left over to buy a smaller home.
But when values dived, there was not enough to even pay off the loan.
'This was the worst financial decision we have ever made,' said Madam Ng.
Adjusting to the situation
The couple and their son, who is in his 30s, have since been moving from one place to another, either staying with close relatives or renting flats.
Madam Ng did not have to work previously, but she now works part-time trying to make ends meet.
While her husband, who had already retired when he took up the scheme, began driving a taxi at first.
He now takes on any odd jobs he can get."
what has this got to do with the deficit?
Originally posted by Fantagf:what has this got to do with the deficit?
nothing, just feel to post, post lor..me training on how to cut and paste too.
Originally posted by angel7030:
nothing, just feel to post, post lor..me training on how to cut and paste too.
aiyo, then you go for software lesson lah! anyway, the old couple quite poor thing.
what you want the govt to do to deal with the deficit problem?
Originally posted by Fantagf:
aiyo, then you go for software lesson lah! anyway, the old couple quite poor thing.what you want the govt to do to deal with the deficit problem?
I want the govt to understand that if u dun hv the stomach to eat so much, dun eat,...later vomit out or get stomach cancer, more problem will rise resulting in deficit.
Singapore is no doubt a small and resourceless city or town, actually for us, we just need to eat abit can already, why need to expand when u do not have the capacity, when time are good no problem, foreigners pouring in, bank lending and loaning, land reclaimed, more power supply, large scale events, high tax, levy, tariffs,..etc etc..on and on as we climb the $$ ladder, then suddenly the ladder collapsed..and the heavier we fall.
The problem is during good time, govt become rich, eat good foods, go for overseas retreats, wine, talk big...and we pay for them.
And when time are bad, govt become less rich, still eats good foods, less overseas retreats, drink beer, talk abit less, ...and we still have to pay for them. And infact, more to recover their deficits.
Originally posted by angel7030:
I want the govt to understand that if u dun hv the stomach to eat so much, dun eat,...later vomit out or get stomach cancer, more problem will rise resulting in deficit.
Singapore is no doubt a small and resourceless city or town, actually for us, we just need to eat abit can already, why need to expand when u do not have the capacity, when time are good no problem, foreigners pouring in, bank lending and loaning, land reclaimed, more power supply, large scale events, high tax, levy, tariffs,..etc etc..on and on as we climb the $$ ladder, then suddenly the ladder collapsed..and the heavier we fall.
The problem is during good time, govt become rich, eat good foods, go for overseas retreats, wine, talk big...and we pay for them.
And when time are bad, govt become less rich, still eats good foods, less overseas retreats, drink beer, talk abit less, ...and we still have to pay for them. And infact, more to recover their deficits.
First thing first, I would like to see them cut down their pay by at least 40%. If they pack/peg their salary according to the corporate world, they should cut down their pay or lay off some of the ministers during the financial crisis, deficit. Corporate companies cut down on salary, retrench staff during bad times, they should do like wise. Is it really of any good to have so many ministers to take care of just a tiny red dot in the world?? If they are proven capable, efficient, effective, there is no need to engage so many ministers to take care of a tiny island.
Originally posted by Fantagf:
First thing first, I would like to see them cut down their pay by at least 40%.
by 40%????!!!...u must be joking.!!!
bunch of irresponsible pple... making peasants pay and pay
Originally posted by TemplarKnight:bunch of irresponsible pple... making peasants pay and pay
Majority of peasants pay willingly. They love to be screwed by Pay and Pay that is why keep voting them in every election.
yes we are bunched of screw ups indeed. even know screw up and continued to do it again ERECTION after ERECTION. We loved to be raped. Yes we do. No doubt bout it. All are sadistic people with some kind of maniac mentally.
KPKB only in forum. Can KPKB till cow come home and still KPKB isnt it?
Originally posted by TemplarKnight:yes we are bunched of screw ups indeed. even know screw up and continued to do it again ERECTION after ERECTION. We loved to be raped. Yes we do. No doubt bout it. All are sadistic people with some kind of maniac mentally.
KPKB only in forum. Can KPKB till cow come home and still KPKB isnt it?
don't generalised not all kpkb only with no action. To each his own, if some want to kpkb and don't do anything about it, leave it to them, there is no way you can force anything out of them. KPKB but do something is encouraging.
Originally posted by Fantagf:
don't generalised not all kpkb only with no action. To each his own, if some want to kpkb and don't do anything about it, leave it to them, there is no way you can force anything out of them. KPKB but do something is encouraging.
my apologies... shdnt generalised pple.