Over 30% earn less than $1200?
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Asset rich retirees and couples with a high earning spouse are considered roundabouts by you when to me, it is very in context with being not representative of whether many Singaporeans may not be better off over the last decade or so.
the % of asset rich retirees and couples with a high earning spouse could be the same (+/-) the last decade & now
but life with 1.2k in last decade isn't the same as life with 1.2k a month now
-
Originally posted by Zweiz:
the % of asset rich retirees and couples with a high earning spouse could be the same (+/-) the last decade & now
but life with 1.2k in last decade isn't the same as life with 1.2k a month now
Flawed argument.
Life with 1.2k in last decade isn't the same as life with 1.2k now because of inflation right? This one we agree.
Do you think inflation only affects the poor? The rich people's money doesn't shrink?
-
Originally posted by insidestory:
Do you think inflation only affects the poor? The rich people's money doesn't shrink?
i think 21% of the population earns below $1.2k a month
why do you keep pulling in different arguments?
-
Originally posted by Zweiz:
i think 21% of the population earns below $1.2k a month
why do you keep pulling in different arguments?
I am not.
I'm answering you HEAD ON. you made a logical flaw in your statements. And then you hide in your shell like a turtle.
You said "the % of asset rich retirees and couples with a high earning spouse could be the same (+/-) the last decade & now
but life with 1.2k in last decade isn't the same as life with 1.2k a month now"
We all know that money shrinks with time because of increasing costs of goods, so life with 1.2k per month 10 yrs ago, is not the same as the same amount now. Your argument above has holes, because while the % of people with high income spouses or rich retirees remain fairly the same (also false, because of rising affluence over the decades means a higher and higher % of these groups of people), the value of their wealth also shrinks from inflation.
-
Originally posted by insidestory:
I'm answering you HEAD ON. you made a logical flaw in your statements. And then you hide in your shell like a turtle.
can you survive on $1.2k a month?
-
Originally posted by Zweiz:
can you survive on $1.2k a month?
Why are you evading? LOL. The fact is that you can never outwit or outlogic either of us and its as clear as day. You're just not at the same level. You have no faculty of logic, basic reasoning abilities and powers of analogy and deductions. All this is part of IQ, which is genetically determined.
People have survived with $800 per month. If you make more, you have more to enjoy. if you make $50k a month, you can buy piano classes for your kids, live in a nice landed property, your kids would have gone to Europe many times over by the time they're 9. Thats the difference between having money and not having. If you make less, you have less. It's that simple.
Anyway no need to talk so much. I only meant to call you out (expose) and show you what a fucktard with no logic you are. I'm leaving the office now. Goodbye fucktard. Have a nice time rotting in a local university (or wherever you fucktards go to)
-
Originally posted by insidestory:
Can't you see that these low-IQ bumpkins who can't understand simple charts and graphs of P6 standards are already set in their ways? They already have their minds made up on their agendas. There's nothing logical or normal you can say that can wake them up from their stupor.
A friend of mine paid income tax all her life until this year at 31, she stopped cos she got tired and quit. She wants to take a break to evaluate what she wants to do with her life and hopes for a career switch, needs to find new direction. Her husband is 3 years younger and is my sec school buddy. He makes $200k per annum and can comfortably support both of them even though technically they haven't attained financial freedom because their condo isn't fully paid up.
Since she's always been a taxpayer since graduation, next yr she'll be listed as one of the "unemployed" 21% who don't even work part time? ahahha.
re-quoting for epicness
-
The moral of the story is, all 30% of Singaporeans who made less than $30k a year, owns a condo and have spouses that makes $200k a year.
-
HDB are so expensive nowadays....hard to be happy working to pay the bank....
-
Originally posted by insidestory:
The rubbish you spewed is typical of ..100% of the shit that comes out of every orifice on your face and body.
There are very few poly grads who do not go to get a degree. note I said, get a degree, I didn't say where. How many do not go on to get a private degree if they didn't couldn't go overseas?
Your inference that "with their educational qualifications", all poly grads will not reach $3k and beyond is so simplistic it can only be uttered by someone born yesterday. Many high income earners, including those in top earning property and financial product sales, are poly grads. Some of them didn't even bother to get a private degree and make $20k a month.
Many poly grads not in sales jobs make $100K per annum and above, doing the same jobs in the office as degree holders.
Your rubbish speech betrays the fact that you've never worked in a corporate environment ever in your life.
What nonsense you are speaking? I think you are still quite naive. You assume that people must get that degree after they get their diploma immediately? My uncle get his degree at 35 years old. And I would consider him as a degree holder now. But they are still many people who are still ITE, or diploma holder until the day they died.
"Top earning property and financial product sales, are poly grads" How many are they? Be realistic. My ex-SGT is doing property now, earning 6 k per month. But they are the limited few. When you flip the newspaper and look at property advertisement in ST701 you would know how many property agents are they?
I think you are the most naive people, that I have ever since. When I work at MOM, 5 years old ago, doing june/july employment survey, you are still swimming. Go to the MOM website and look at employment stats. yourself. Dont come and argue without doing your homework.
There are always exceptions here and there but we are talking as a general picture.
Most older generations in their 40 to 70 s, are also Singaporeans, and they are still working. And most of them are not even ITE or dipolma holder. Have you forgot that they exist?
-
Originally posted by Zweiz:
the % of asset rich retirees and couples with a high earning spouse could be the same (+/-) the last decade & now
but life with 1.2k in last decade isn't the same as life with 1.2k a month now
well, that what I have been trying to imply all along. How would you know whether the percentages is the same, or different, or less? Especially with so many newcomers... We wouldn't know! The demographics has changed a lot since last decade.
And that's the reason why I say this data is not represensatitive. It's just people hyping it up.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
well, that what I have been trying to imply all along. How would you know whether the percentages is the same, or different, or less? Especially with so many newcomers... We wouldn't know! The demographics has changed a lot since last decade.
And that's the reason why I say this data is not represensatitive. It's just people hyping it up.
ai yeah edit this... dun want to get flamed LOL!
-
Originally posted by insidestory:
You're such a fucktard.
The table is inverse, because it calculates where you stand against the rest of the population.
Do you seriously think 98.7% of the pop. earn $500,000 per annum? Or is it someone who earns $500,000 per annum earns more than 98.7% of the pop.?
U very stupid leh.you are the one who dunoe anything.please get your logic right before you flame ppl.
I know what i am saying that only 11.5% of taxpayers earn up to $30k or 2.5k/mnth, and 30.7% below 40k.
likewise, it means that 88.5% of taxpayer earn more than $2500/mnth.
and i made my statement on the belief that there should be much more people who fall within the lower bands, since economies operate on a pyramidal wage structure, that there are much more workers supporting a higher paid managerial level.
and from the data, the median is between 50k-60k, roughly around 55k i assume.
so it means that the top 50% of taxpayers earn at least $4.6k/mnth, and the top 25% earn at least $7.5k/mnth
53.8%, more than half more than $50k, or $4k/mnth, and that put them at managerial pay, or managerial level. It seems that the structure here seems a little top-heavy.
-
Why ones like to call ones name as if ones is the smartest forumer over here. Doesnt ones love to let ones call oneself names too? Be respectful to each other. Yes one can be a good at argue, ones get respected but no calling names. Making oneself look very bad.
-
Originally posted by deathmaster:
you are the one who dunoe anything.please get your logic right before you flame ppl.
I know what i am saying that only 11.5% of taxpayers earn up to $30k or 2.5k/mnth, and 30.7% below 40k.
likewise, it means that 88.5% of taxpayer earn more than $2500/mnth.
and i made my statement on the belief that there should be much more people who fall within the lower bands, since economies operate on a pyramidal wage structure, that there are much more workers supporting a higher paid managerial level.
and from the data, the median is between 50k-60k, roughly around 55k i assume.
so it means that the top 50% of taxpayers earn at least $4.6k/mnth, and the top 25% earn at least $7.5k/mnth
53.8%, more than half more than $50k, or $4k/mnth, and that put them at managerial pay, or managerial level. It seems that the structure here seems a little top-heavy.
Notice... you are talking about "tax payer" that is income of 20 k PA and above. If you are having exemption/reduction from parents, children and etc.. you might not be a taxpayer at all. So there is a huge % of the Singapore population that is not inside this data at all. My father earns about $3k per month, and he have never pay any tax for 20 over years.
The initial thread is talking about "Over 30% earn less than $1,200?" <-- they are not tax payers at all and they do not feed into the table posted by eagle. They are totally outside the scope.
-
Originally posted by Lokey:
Notice... you are talking about "tax payer" that is income of 20 k PA and above. If you are having exemption/reduction from parents, children and etc.. you might not be a taxpayer at all. So there is a huge % of the Singapore population that is not inside this data at all. My father earns about $3k per month, and he have never pay any tax for 20 over years.
The initial thread is talking about "Over 30% earn less than $1,200?" <-- they are not tax payers at all and they do not feed into the table posted by eagle. They are totally outside the scope.
Yes, there is this group where they dont need to pay any tax.(family with 3 or more children), he is giving a sum of money for annually deduction.
-
Just to put things into perspective here. Some people think earning $200k a year is such a big deal. There's a chinese saying which goes that there's always one mountain higher than another. And such a condescending attitude speaks volumes of one's inferior complex upbringing.
I actually have have dealings with rich people and mind you, these people are multi millionaires, not the "few hundred k a year and I'm damn shit proud of it". They have workers who number in the thousands. But they don't appear in any way condescending to anyone. I believe that's because they know they've started off poor and they have come to appreciate their good fortune today. Even their children are well brought up.
-
Originally posted by Rock^Star:
Just to put things into perspective here. Some people think earning $200k a year is such a big deal. There's a chinese saying which goes that there's always one mountain higher than another. And such a condescending attitude speaks volumes of one's inferior complex upbringing.
I actually have have dealings with rich people and mind you, these people are multi millionaires, not the "few hundred k a year and I'm damn shit proud of it". They have workers who number in the thousands. But they don't appear in any way condescending to anyone. I believe that's because they know they've started off poor and they have come to appreciate their good fortune today. Even their children are well brought up.
It he treated his employees good and well taken care of...I will respect him, bow to him...
-
And the eagle's data is a cumulative freq curve. (O level E-Maths)
It means that
11.5% percent confidence interval, are paying at 30 K. 88.5 % of the tax payers are paying at 30 k
98.7% percent confidence interval are paying at 500k. That is 1.3% of the tax payers are paying at 500 k.
The data refers to "assessable" annual income. Do u understand the meaning of "assessable"?
-
Originally posted by eagle:
well, that what I have been trying to imply all along. How would you know whether the percentages is the same, or different, or less? Especially with so many newcomers... We wouldn't know! The demographics has changed a lot since last decade.
how would i know? i don't. that's why my sentence stopped at '21% of population earns below $1.2k a month' (notice 21% is less than 30%)
but on the other hand, you're arguing against statistical facts with hypothetical scenarios that can't be dis-proven (what about those that didn't hook up a rich spouse? what about singles?) and irrelevant samples (rental income isn't part of workforce report)
if ts is hyping it up, you're hyping it down
-
Originally posted by insidestory:
Why are you evading? LOL. The fact is that you can never outwit or outlogic either of us and its as clear as day. You're just not at the same level. You have no faculty of logic, basic reasoning abilities and powers of analogy and deductions. All this is part of IQ, which is genetically determined.
People have survived with $800 per month. If you make more, you have more to enjoy. if you make $50k a month, you can buy piano classes for your kids, live in a nice landed property, your kids would have gone to Europe many times over by the time they're 9. Thats the difference between having money and not having. If you make less, you have less. It's that simple.
Anyway no need to talk so much. I only meant to call you out (expose) and show you what a fucktard with no logic you are. I'm leaving the office now. Goodbye fucktard. Have a nice time rotting in a local university (or wherever you fucktards go to)
did you read the question?
-
I believe over 30% earn less than $1,200.
-
Originally posted by Zweiz:
how would i know? i don't. that's why my sentence stopped at '21% of population earns below $1.2k a month' (notice 21% is less than 30%)
but on the other hand, you're arguing against statistical facts with hypothetical scenarios that can't be dis-proven (what about those that didn't hook up a rich spouse? what about singles?) and irrelevant samples (rental income isn't part of workforce report)
if ts is hyping it up, you're hyping it down
1) Is rental income not income, even if it is not in the workforce report? Please, tell me rental income is not income, dividends received is not part of income, nor income from other online sources. I do know people making $2k a month from online sources and this is not taxed. Trading income is perhaps not income to you too. Am I right to say that?
2) 21% of population earns below $1.2k a month is what is officially reported. I'm talking about income sources that are not official, that do not need to be reported. In actual fact, the number earning less that $1.2k is likely lower. Are you saying this is wrong?
3) I have again pointed out real life scenarios. 21% is reported. IMO, there is no scenarios where it can be higher than that, but there's scenarios where it can be lower. So it can only be lower. Are you saying this is wrong too?
4) Finally, as I have said before, my aim is on the sentence of whether Singaporeans are better of the last decade. Some of the reasons include people choosing to work part time and thus earn less than $1.2k per month. And that is the reason I said the results is not representative, for this final conclusion by the author. Are you going to dispute this?
5) "you're arguing against statistical facts with hypothetical scenarios that can't be dis-proven"
And this is where you are wrong. Again, my main point is against the author, who has argued for his conclusion based on a flawed and myopic analytical view of the statistical data shown.
And in which post did I argue against statistical facts? Did I mention in any post that it is wrong? Statistics is merely numbers. I'm pointing out where it is not representative, and how it cannot leads to the conclusion that was made.
In total, there 5 paragraphs of questions for you. I have labelled them for your convenience for discussions.
-
If the housing was solved, anybody could live with lower than $1200 pm income, even $600 if single. Yeah, it really deps on your spending habits, to some, $4k also not enough!
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
If the housing was solved, anybody could live with lower than $1200 pm income, even $600 if single. Yeah, it really deps on your spending habits, to some, $4k also not enough!
I hv a friend, 43 yr old, being doing part time for all his life.Month pay is arond $300 to $400. Depends on whether got job or not.
He's not married and now he's still one piece. Only getting fatter.