Over 30% earn less than $1200?
-
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.
Actually if you have tax deductions, you still considered part of "taxpayers". Just that you pay $0. You can have a assessable income of <$20k and not pay any tax. But you are still in the records of IRAS. Hence your dad will still be in the table I posted.
:)
I initially posted the table just for extra data to ponder about, and not trying to prove or disprove anything. The people who earn less than $1.2k still fit into the table because they still have assessable income. They just fall into the tax bracket of $0 tax.
-
Originally posted by likeyou:
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.
Like i said, if housing was solved, any $ is cool to survive, mate!
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
Like i said, if housing was solved, any $ is cool to survive, mate!
Housing solved is good but pple still need to face the ever increasing cost of living.
-
Have u met with homeless people? Not just a single person, but the whole family (with children) I personally saw some at beaches and at some HDB areas....
-
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1096618/1/.html
Third ITE regional campus to take in students from 2013
By Ng Jing Yng/Hoe Yeen Nie | Posted: 01 December 2010 1559 hrs
Photos 1 of 1 
Institute of Technical EducationVideo 
Third ITE regional campus to take in students from 2013
Twitter
Messenger
SINGAPORE: The third and final Institute of Technical Education (ITE) regional campus will start operating in January 2013.
The ground-breaking ceremony for the campus in Ang Mo Kio, known as ITE College Central, was held on Wednesday morning. The project is the most extensive ITE campus project to date.
However, the cost of the project was not disclosed.
The campus will span a land area of 10.6 hectares and will be able to accommodate 10,400 students - 40 per cent more than what the other two campuses can hold.
New programmes in the performing arts will be offered at the campus.
Education Minister Dr Ng Eng Hen who officiated at the ceremony said this would allow ITE to support Singapore's growing arts and entertainment industry.
The new campus will also offer courses in niche areas such as Design and Media, Early Childhood Education as well as Aerospace Engineering.
Dr Ng said over the years, ITE enrolment has risen from 19 per cent of the graduating secondary cohort in 2000, to 22 per cent last year.
A result, he said, of changing perceptions.
"More students are enrolling, because they all know there is real value in an ITE education. That's the proof of the pudding. You can do all the marketing you want, you can come up with campaigns. But if the students don't believe you can give value to them, your enrolment will fall."
Dr Ng added that ITE graduates have also done well in the labour market, with four in five securing jobs last year despite the downturn.
Separately, the Ministry of Education (MOE) told MediaCorp that from next year, foreign students who did not go through Singapore's education system will not be able to attend the ITE's full-time Nitec and Higher Nitec courses.
The MOE said these students were admitted directly into ITE's traineeship and engineering courses to address "specific, short term manpower needs" of employers.
Part-time courses that serve that need will continue to admit foreign students directly, said the MOE.
The MOE said about four percent of each full-time ITE cohort are foreign nationals.
Most of them enter ITE after taking the GCE 'N' and 'O' level examinations in Singapore.
-CNA/ac -
A fresh ITE grad earns $1000-$1300 on average (my estimate).
-
I do know of ITE grads who went into the property sector and earns about $8k per month
Then again, they are the minority. It depends on the sector you went in. There are those that failed too.
Then again, I've no idea why these are the people I encounter.
-
The property and insurance sector allow those who are a little on the short on tertiary education to excel. Kind of like an alternative place for them because 99% of them would never better the degree holders in civil service.
As the law of numbers go: "For every one that succeeds, there must be another hundred who have failed."
-
Originally posted by eagle:
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.
1) alternative sources of income exists 10 years ago. they weren't included in the workforce report then, they're not included now.
2) we're talking about "whether many Singaporeans may not be better off over the last decade or so"? there are income not reported now, as with 10 years ago. the numbers may be lower now, as it was 10 years ago.
3) i could point out 101 hypothetical scenarios of singaporean elders collecting trash cans, working as office cleaners and kopitiam table cleaners, all with no extra income. we could talk about 'the people we know' all day, but what's the point?
also imo: not to mention that if a wife earns <$1.2k and the husband is earning big bucks, the wife will likely stop working.
4) your reasons (including people choosing to work part-time) are equally applicable 10 years ago, if you raise the bar now due to your reasonings, the bar should be raised similarly 10 years ago for an even comparison
5) the author provided other statistical data including unemployment, periods of unemployment and of specific industries. your argument consist of bringing down the 21% (or 30%) using the people you know who happens to be asset-rich retirees and low-income earners who hitched high-earning spouses
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
Have u met with homeless people? Not just a single person, but the whole family (with children) I personally saw some at beaches and at some HDB areas....
U will feel differently about the system when u see those homeless with your own eyes...sad....
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Actually if you have tax deductions, you still considered part of "taxpayers". Just that you pay $0. You can have a assessable income of <$20k and not pay any tax. But you are still in the records of IRAS. Hence your dad will still be in the table I posted.
:)
I initially posted the table just for extra data to ponder about, and not trying to prove or disprove anything. The people who earn less than $1.2k still fit into the table because they still have assessable income. They just fall into the tax bracket of $0 tax.
I see. So the table that you post includes people who are paying $0 tax.
-
Originally posted by Zweiz:
1) alternative sources of income exists 10 years ago. they weren't included in the workforce report then, they're not included now.
2) we're talking about "whether many Singaporeans may not be better off over the last decade or so"? there are income not reported now, as with 10 years ago. the numbers may be lower now, as it was 10 years ago.
3) i could point out 101 hypothetical scenarios of singaporean elders collecting trash cans, working as office cleaners and kopitiam table cleaners, all with no extra income. we could talk about 'the people we know' all day, but what's the point?
also imo: not to mention that if a wife earns <$1.2k and the husband is earning big bucks, the wife will likely stop working.
4) your reasons (including people choosing to work part-time) are equally applicable 10 years ago, if you raise the bar now due to your reasonings, the bar should be raised similarly 10 years ago for an even comparison
5) the author provided other statistical data including unemployment, periods of unemployment and of specific industries. your argument consist of bringing down the 21% (or 30%) using the people you know who happens to be asset-rich retirees and low-income earners who hitched high-earning spouses
1) I'm asking you if you considered those I listed as income, but not in the official work report. Why are you repeating what I have been saying all along?
2) The question I asked is: "In actual fact, the number earning less that $1.2k is likely lower. Are you saying this is wrong?" Why beat around the bush without responding to the question?
The numbers could be higher due to the mega influx of foreigners and funds over the last decade. We do not know the numbers, hence I said it is not representative. Anything wrong?
3) My question is "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?" You didn't provide any answer to this. Can you show a scenario where someone earns above $1.2k a month officially, yet somehow fall within the 21%? I don't need 101 scenarios from you, just 2 will do. Thanks.
The wife can be working for the sake of social relevance. Do you seriously think $200k p.a. is big money?
The point is still... are the numbers sufficiently representative for the conclusion?
4) Yes, you are right. My reasons can be equally applicable. But I don't see you answering at all. The point is still... are the numbers sufficiently representative for the conclusion?
5) Yes, the author raised more statistics. Fact is, people are complaining that the incumbent focus too much on numbers and statistics. Yet they are supporting the author for focussing solely on numbers and statistics too.
It's akin to Raymond concluding that ERP help Singaporeans own more cars just from statistics.
Using your very own example.
"also imo: not to mention that if a wife earns <$1.2k and the husband is earning big bucks, the wife will likely stop working."
It is one scenario which you recognized but the author did not too.
Yes, I'm glad you realise that my argument consists of bringing down the 21% (or 30%) using the people I know who happens to be asset-rich retirees and low-income earners who hitched high-earning spouses. And I don't see anything wrong with it, because I'm trying to input what I see from the ground, and not purely from statistics.
So are you going to continue purely and solely from the statistics point of view? Because I'm not interested to analyse solely the numbers, which are already to me somewhat unrepresentative.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
1) I'm asking you if you considered those I listed as income, but not in the official work report. Why are you repeating what I have been saying all along?
2) The question I asked is: "In actual fact, the number earning less that $1.2k is likely lower. Are you saying this is wrong?" Why beat around the bush without responding to the question?
The numbers could be higher due to the mega influx of foreigners and funds over the last decade. We do not know the numbers, hence I said it is not representative. Anything wrong?
3) My question is "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?" You didn't provide any answer to this. Can you show a scenario where someone earns above $1.2k a month officially, yet somehow fall within the 21%? I don't need 101 scenarios from you, just 2 will do. Thanks.
The wife can be working for the sake of social relevance. Do you seriously think $200k p.a. is big money?
The point is still... are the numbers sufficiently representative for the conclusion?
4) Yes, you are right. My reasons can be equally applicable. But I don't see you answering at all. The point is still... are the numbers sufficiently representative for the conclusion?
5) Yes, the author raised more statistics. Fact is, people are complaining that the incumbent focus too much on numbers and statistics. Yet they are supporting the author for focussing solely on numbers and statistics too.
It's akin to Raymond concluding that ERP help Singaporeans own more cars just from statistics.
Using your very own example.
"also imo: not to mention that if a wife earns <$1.2k and the husband is earning big bucks, the wife will likely stop working."
It is one scenario which you recognized but the author did not too.
Yes, I'm glad you realise that my argument consists of bringing down the 21% (or 30%) using the people I know who happens to be asset-rich retirees and low-income earners who hitched high-earning spouses. And I don't see anything wrong with it, because I'm trying to input what I see from the ground, and not purely from statistics.
So are you going to continue purely and solely from the statistics point of view? Because I'm not interested to analyse solely the numbers, which are already to me somewhat unrepresentative.
if you agree with 4, you should also see that 1,2,3 is irrelevant to the topic at hand
also, your idea of a discussion consist of quoting a fact (rental income isn't part of workforce report), play with words (Is rental income not income?), make wordplay assumptions (Trading income is perhaps not income to you too) then throw it back at me (Why beat around the bush without responding to the question?)
i'll be really busy if i reply to each and every post of this nature
-
Originally posted by Zweiz:
if you agree with 4, you should also see that 1,2,3 is irrelevant to the topic at hand
also, your idea of a discussion consist of quoting a fact (rental income isn't part of workforce report), play with words (Is rental income not income?), make wordplay assumptions (Trading income is perhaps not income to you too) then throw it back at me (Why beat around the bush without responding to the question?)
i'll be really busy if i reply to each and every post of this nature
I can see that you insist on failing to understand what is truly meant by income. It's not playing with words nor are they assumptions; it is fact. Fact is, my dividends are not taxed on my side. Fact is, my meagre online advertising revenue from my blogs is not taxed. Fact is, the amount I gain from trading stocks is not taxed. And these are what I considered as part of my income. In fact, at 27 yrs old, I can stop working right now, do a 6 hrs week part time relaxing job for $1k a month and be part of the 21%, and survive on these alternative income sources and still see my savings grow slowly. Why? Because my expenses aren't high.
I just choose not to stop because I have some life goals I set out to achieve; they are still far from being achieved. I have done up my path myself, I don't see how many others aren't doing it yet.
In fact, there's this person who had been buying SMRT since he started working. And he has accumulated so many that he quitted in 2008 to relax and enjoy his SMRT dividends, at the age of 35. But he's single though.
It would be interesting to see you define what you mean by income.
Each of 1, 2, 3 and 4 are all pointing at the same thing: the numbers and statistics are not representative enough for the conclusion by the author. These are my supporting points, and they are all direct to the point. And they are highly relevant.
It just got longer because you continue to evade questions by beating round bushes. You would be better off explaining why points 1, 2, 3 are irrelevant than merely just making a baseless claim.
-
Originally posted by Rock^Star:
A fresh ITE grad earns $1000-$1300 on average (my estimate).
imho....having another ite is good especially those half way up thru the secondary school and unable to keep the pace for the N or O level exams. That ite will be their next training ground to learn new skills on the jobs training, as what my neice are doing now..a kind of stepping stones for the less than average students who want to excel in their studies but keeps on failing their examination.also imho...why not change the name ite? To make it more appealing to the students and make them wont feel inferior than their peers who go to jc or poly?
-
Originally posted by eagle:
I can see that you insist on failing to understand what is truly meant by income. It's not playing with words nor are they assumptions; it is fact. Fact is, my dividends are not taxed on my side. Fact is, my meagre online advertising revenue from my blogs is not taxed. Fact is, the amount I gain from trading stocks is not taxed. And these are what I considered as part of my income. In fact, at 27 yrs old, I can stop working right now, do a 6 hrs week part time relaxing job for $1k a month and be part of the 21%, and survive on these alternative income sources and still see my savings grow slowly. Why? Because my expenses aren't high.
I just choose not to stop because I have some life goals I set out to achieve; they are still far from being achieved. I have done up my path myself, I don't see how many others aren't doing it yet.
In fact, there's this person who had been buying SMRT since he started working. And he has accumulated so many that he quitted in 2008 to relax and enjoy his SMRT dividends, at the age of 35. But he's single though.
It would be interesting to see you define what you mean by income.
Each of 1, 2, 3 and 4 are all pointing at the same thing: the numbers and statistics are not representative enough for the conclusion by the author. These are my supporting points, and they are all direct to the point. And they are highly relevant.
It just got longer because you continue to evade questions by beating round bushes. You would be better off explaining why points 1, 2, 3 are irrelevant than merely just making a baseless claim.
first post is discussing about the poor who earns less than $1.2k a month
i'm interested in discussing about the poor who earns less than $1.2k a month
i'm not interested in your 101 other theories of rich people because i'm more interested in the 21% (or whatever % after accounting for your friends) who are genuinely poor
-
I like to mix with the 'poor' than 'rich' pple.
-
Originally posted by Zweiz:
first post is discussing about the poor who earns less than $1.2k a month
i'm interested in discussing about the poor who earns less than $1.2k a month
i'm not interested in your 101 other theories of rich people because i'm more interested in the 21% (or whatever % after accounting for your friends) who are genuinely poor
Yep, I'm precisely talking about the 21%, and saying it is over-hyped and not representative. And you recognized it earlier.
i'm not interested in your 101 other theories of rich people because i'm more interested in the 21%
Why are you so self contradictory?
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Yep, I'm precisely talking about the 21%, and saying it is over-hyped and not representative. And you recognized it earlier.
you do realize there are singaporeans who genuinely earn less than $1.2k a month right?
-
Originally posted by eagle:
Why are you so self contradictory?
you forgot 'who are genuinely poor' there
-
Originally posted by Zweiz:
you do realize there are singaporeans who genuinely earn less than $1.2k a month right?
You do realise that I'm pointing out that it is less than 21% who genuinely earn less than $1.2k a month right?
And you do realise that I mentioned much earlier too that those who are really in the lower income bracket and struggling to make a living deserves our attention, and that complaining on figures and taking action for those who really need it are two totally different things.
But instead, you chose to ignore the part on taking action, and focus solely and purely on what I mentioned about figures since page 1.
Now you take a stab on yourself and attempt to ask if I realised there are singaporeans who genuinely earn less than $1.2k a month, when I had never deny that and had already pointed out in the first page that these people deserves our attention???
All I'm seeing is you are merely repeating what I have already said earlier, and this is the 2nd time.
-
They can only afford brand new 1 rm HDB leh....well at least the Govt. still providing them with this option.
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
They can only afford brand new 1 rm HDB leh....well at least the Govt. still providing them with this option.
I'm embarking on something, a plan with a few years horizon, which I hope will eventually be able to benefit some of them. My main aim is still on the education of young, so my targetted charity when my plan succeeds is Pocket Money Fund.
Whether I will succeed a not... I also don't know...
-
Originally posted by eagle:
You do realise that I'm pointing out that it is less than 21% who genuinely earn less than $1.2k a month right?
And you do realise that I mentioned much earlier too that those who are really in the lower income bracket and struggling to make a living deserves our attention, and that complaining on figures and taking action for those who really need it are two totally different things.
But instead, you chose to ignore the part on taking action, and focus solely and purely on what I mentioned about figures since page 1.
Now you take a stab on yourself and attempt to ask if I realised there are singaporeans who genuinely earn less than $1.2k a month, when I had never deny that and had already pointed out in the first page that these people deserves our attention???
All I'm seeing is you are merely repeating what I have already said earlier, and this is the 2nd time.
all i see is you trying to shift the topic to the rich singaporeans with 10page long comments that nobody bothers to read and tries to paint a rosier picture on the ground. like our government.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
But instead, you chose to ignore the part on taking action, and focus solely and purely on what I mentioned about figures since page 1.
i'm not responsible for your reading comprehension