Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 56 of 56

Thread: New CPF rules

  1. #41

    Default Re: New CPF rules

    Quote Originally Posted by shorty View Post
    I would like to save more... but if i had 3 kids to feed, to school, to medicare, to public transport, 1 small HDB unit to pay and basic needs expenses to pay, saving $100 a month without fail for 30 years is kind of great achievement morally! i wanted to provide more for my kids, for their better future, but i had limits. limits caused by worrying future and limits caused by worrying about my insecure income source... what about you?
    Cutting down on unnecessary expenditure is only one part. Maybe you can speak to your boss about taking on bigger responsibility and possibility of upgrading your skills? Also keep a look out for alternatives. You have to move out of your comfort zone. And hopefully your kids will make you proud in the future!

  2. #42

    Default Re: New CPF rules

    i was thinking these few days, how to curb this public housing speculation & make common citizen lives better.

    An idea is to peg the resale price to the HDB selling price of recent flats of the same class, but max it out to 50% instead of the currently free ride, the sky's the limit. Afterall its public housing, if people want to invest, they shud get pte & it makes sense too. In a way, i think the market will be more dynamic & keep this property bubble in better control.

    i think the people & the govt alike need to understand the word "Public" in the terms "Public housing" "Public service" "Public transport" "Public good" etc.

    When people dun have such heavy debt, they can live better. More people can expand or downgrade with ease. When u pay less debt, u can use more money in CPF to invest. Those who dun contri much to CPF will pay less with cash. More cash in hand means better for economy more dynamic

    At present, i see our country having 1st class GDP but the people r living like 3rd world citizen, very poor & very low spending power

    Feel free to chip in ur opinions no worry

  3. #43

    Default Re: New CPF rules

    So night86mare, could you suggest any improvements to the current system? Does it need improvements?

  4. #44

    Default Re: New CPF rules

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    while this is subjective, i think most people are not controlling their spending.

    just look at every IT fair......
    what IT fair..just walk along the road, so many rich man cars....
    Objection !!!

  5. #45

    Default Re: New CPF rules

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    while this is subjective, i think most people are not controlling their spending.

    just look at every IT fair......
    Did u juz mentioned the taboo word? "BUY! BUY! BUY!"? HAHAHAHA!!!

    I presumed ur "most people" refers to global scale? Its everywhere in the world. So many swipe cards until they r drown in debts... so sad. Its an irony how in our pri school days the POSB people came to encourage us to save but as u come out to work, "Credit card for u? Lifetime free"

    Anyway back to the topic. If the Computer fairs really offer good deals & packages, i dun see why not, people needs to use it & will eventually buy. Some products have better deals & some dun, everyone needs to do their homework b4 buying from there. For eg, cameras more exp there & they throw in some useless freebies, so not worth getting cams there, to me. But things like laptop, they give u free software & accessories for the same price u pay out of the promo, that i think not bad. Bought my monitor last yr & got a $20 discount where i can't get from anywhere else.

    There r people who spend their money foolishly & there r people who spend wisely. Therefore u will still see rich people & poor people, globally. But the govt can't control this by controlling/locking ur money becos its juz a matter of time people will go broke & join the social problem club. Where does this circle start & where does it end? Its ongoing since day 1, for generations after generations & never going to stop. But govt make good revenue from there, by introducing GST, levies, tax, admin fees, erp, public transport, etc.

    Who knows, maybe by landing the citizens here with more cash in hand, they actually can make S'pore a retail haven globally, & that in turns drive up tourism, which in turn give local shops & airport more bizz, which in turn attracts more foreign investors, resulting in creating more jobs, that continues to feed the BUY! BUY! BUY! virus. ok i'm naive

    The bottom line is, govt shudn't drown its citizens with heavy debt from HDB housing & not controlling the speculation of public housing. Aren't one of their duties is to help the citizens & improve their quality of life? Introducing heavy levies & commissions on speculation is plain BS, it serves no purpose except make loads of money from the problem before the bubble burst. Sounds familiar? U bet! ERP didn't solve the traffic problem, it merely profited from it. So with heavy debt & little cash in hand, i still see ourselves as 3rd world citizens living in a world class country

  6. #46

    Default Re: New CPF rules

    Quote Originally Posted by nightpiper View Post
    But the govt can't control this by controlling/locking ur money becos its juz a matter of time people will go broke & join the social problem club.
    Again, the minimum sum is the minimum that is required to tide us until the day we die. If we allow early withdrawal, we're just postponing the problem. If I find myself out of money before withdrawal age, then it is better to find alternative solutions while there are more options available when we are still young eg. seek lower paying jobs, skills upgrade...

    If we withdraw early and later find that there is not enough money at age 75, we are already pass the age for skill upgrading or start looking for job.

  7. #47

    Default Re: New CPF rules

    In the end, it boils down to whether the govt should operate with a surplus and continue to build up our reserves. It seems to me a lot of people wants them to stop growing the reserve or at a slower rate so that the citizen will have more money to spend eg. value land at lower cost so that land sale is cheaper and hopefully developer will sell at cheaper price, shops rental will go down and cost for goods will go down or money save from rental will go to increase in wages for the workers.

    I don't agree. There will be businessman who will seek to maximise the profit. It is very naive to think that by lowering the land cost, they will automatically reduce prices or pay more to the workers. As long as people have more money to spend (now that they don't have to pay so much for their property), the businessman will continue to keep the price high.

    Anyway, it is my opinion that we have to continue building up our reserves. We can't stop. Not now. But the rate of building could be slowed down.

  8. #48

    Default Re: New CPF rules

    The Richest Cities in the world- by purchasing power (UBS Survey 2009)

    Rank Cities
    1 Zurich
    2 Sydney
    3 Luxembourg
    4 Dublin
    5 Miami
    6 Los Angeles
    7 Geneva
    8 New York
    9 Chicago
    10 Nicosia
    11 Berlin
    12 Montreal
    13 Brussels
    14 Helsinki
    15 London
    16 Copenhagen
    17 Toronto
    18 Amsterdam
    19 Frankfurt
    20 Munich
    21 Lyon
    22 Stockholm
    23 Tokyo
    24 Vienna
    25 Madrid
    26 Milan
    27 Paris
    28 Oslo
    29 Barcelona
    30 Auckland
    31 Lisbon
    32 Athens
    33 Dubai
    34 Tel Aviv
    35 Taipei
    36 Ljubljana
    37 Moscow
    38 Manama
    39 Rome
    40 Johannesburg
    41 Hong Kong
    42 Seoul
    43 Tallinn
    44 Prague
    45 São Paulo
    46 Doha
    47 Bratislava
    48 Rio de Janeiro
    49 Kuala Lumpur
    50 Singapore
    51 Warsaw
    52 Bogotá
    53 Vilnius
    54 Riga
    55 Buenos Aires
    56 Bucharest
    57 Santiago
    58 Lima
    59 Istanbul
    60 Budapest
    61 Caracas
    62 Sofia
    63 Shanghai
    64 Cairo
    65 Bangkok
    66 Beijing
    67 Kiev
    68 Delhi
    69 Mexico City
    70 Mumbai
    71 Manila
    72 Nairobi
    73 Jakarta
    Tum podem extulit horridulum...日出東方﹐唯我不敗。

  9. #49

    Default Re: New CPF rules

    We are 49 countries away from our goal in "Swiss Standard of Living". We are hovering near the last quadrant of that standard, from the purchasing power point of view, only faring better than developing and economically challenged countries with the surprise in our neighbours up north doing better than us.

    Anecdotal observations on the number of people appearing in IT fairs or revenue it generated and the number of luxury cars a person sees on the road does not truly reflect the actual population general.

    We do not have the demographics of the buyers at the IT fair and they could be Singaporeans, tourists, Corporate buyers and exporters; hence, visual impression may not be a reliable gauge. In addition, casual count of luxury cars on the road cannot be simply attributed to the 3.2 million Singaporeans when the country's total population is 4.9 million. Even if the assumption is that every luxury car that is seen belonged to Singaporeans, the ratio of the number of luxury cars against 3.2 million people may not be substantial enough to represent the entire population.

    Upgrading workers' skill sets and qualifications used to be a viable solution to improving their quality of life. However, in our current environment and context, this may not be an absolute truth. With our liberal job migrant policies, we are experiencing high numbers of highly qualified professionals coming into country generating higher employment competition as well as underemployment.

    The mismatched pace in the rising numbers of migrants seeking jobs here and job creation may have caused many highly qualified professionals to become underemployed. It is not uncommon to learn that graduates and post graduates are driving taxis in this country. Although this underemployment problem is not unique to Singapore, but also in countries that are traditionally migrant friendly (eg. Canada), the difference is that there are job protection policies in those countries and it seems that the majority of their underemployed are the migrants. It does not make sense that a person would need to go through 18 to 22 years of education to be a competent taxi driver in their own country.

    In any free market, sellers are subjected to other sellers as well as the bargaining power of the buyers. Sellers cannot hold high prices (unless they are the only seller, the market is centrally controlled or they had formed a cartel) because there is always another seller willing to compete on market share instead.

    Given that the local purchasing powers is weak, retirement funds are diminishing overtime, employment market is and looks set to stay saturated and that CPF and its increase makes further unfavourable conditions (to locals being employed), I think Singaporeans should have the liberty to invest their CPF in their own interest for the good of their later years and that it should not be used to fund a HDB flat.
    Last edited by eyes; 15th May 2010 at 04:14 AM.
    Tum podem extulit horridulum...日出東方﹐唯我不敗。

  10. #50

    Default Re: New CPF rules

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    eyes, i have to point out that a lot of those "cities" you list there are capitals.
    Thank you for pointing out the mis-wording which turns out to be a positive one. As Singapore is a city state, it is only consistent that when we compare ourselves in terms of societal issues with other countries, city to city comparison are more applicable.

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    in developmental economics, one way to measure what is termed as "inequality" (which i wager you already know) is the gini coefficient.
    As your previous reply to nightpiper's low spending power was "just look at every IT fair," am I right that the context of the reply is talking about purchasing power rather than income divide? Gini coefficient and index measures the gap between the rich and the poor, so why bring in Gini coefficient when the my response was to the context of your reply to nightpiper- which is about purchasing powers?

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    i think it is arguable whether the ultimate state of nirvana for any country is a gini coefficient of 0 - loads of things to consider instead of nice sounding, bambi-image-inducing equality..
    Are terms like justice and equality familiar? Are they not the principles of this society? Is it not the goal of every government to narrow down the income divide to avoid social unrest? Unless you have evidence to support that income divide is good, otherwise, why move into challenging timeless principles?

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    first of all, i am doubtful as to banks would really offer rates on par. quotes from a comparable loan from dbs gives $1K installment for first 2 years, $1.2K for the third year, and $1.36K from then on until year 30. if anything, i don't see how hdb loan rates would be less competitive than banks, because if that were the case buyers could easily go to banks.
    I did not propose not to take a loan from HDB. What I am suggesting is not to use CPF to fund HDB Flats. However, it is a requirement by HDB to fully utilise buyers' CPF before a loan is granted. Such requirement should be scrapped.

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    bearing this in mind, assuming that i am a fresh graduate who's looking to start work and i happen to want to start a family and purchase a hdb flat. my starting pay is say, $2.4K - take out that whooping hdb loan, cpf, transport expenditures... as you can see, it *is* a game of musical chairs.
    I don't understand on the musical chair you're talking about in this statement.

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    the only benefit i can see is that with cpf being disengaged from housing payments people will definitely be forced to save. and they would possibly be extremely miserable. with cpf used to pay off housing loans, they can maximize their own utility by deciding what they want to do with the free flow of cash. so effectively this is a heavier restriction than the current process.. and changing this to your proposed system would cause a huge, enormous, gaping drop in spending in the economy, a certain disaster.
    I think miserable is a rather strong word to use. I would say it is more restrictive in its early stage of application. However, if we pursue an instant gratification attitude for the sake of having more immediate cash, we are at the expense of having our retirement funds paying up a leasehold property which gives us negative gains. How would that help in our retirement? If we need to lock-in our retirement monies to fund a devaluing leasehold property in order to support a healthy national economy, what does that says about our current economic model?

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    once again, with regards to "reputable money managers" - who takes the responsibility if they screw up? when they screw up, and the government cannot take the responsibility, what do you think people will say? i think the first response would be to point fingers to the government, point at the other managers who didn't screw up, and scream bloody murder. welcome to singapore.
    We need to progress from nanny and child mentality to being an adult. To even consider the "if screw up people will blame us" scenario shows that we have not started to progress.

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    as far as i can see, the proposed changes you have suggested are merely based on the principle that "cpf is for retirement" and you make it even more rigid than it already is. in terms of added welfare, this is at best a cosmetic change - you just swap the cpf expenditure that people DO have to put into housing sooner or later out for part of their take-home pay.. and claim that as a result there is more flexibility and potential for better investment returns.
    My proposal is not a cosmetic change. Is utilising a person's CPF in real investments instead of locking it into a devaluing leasehold property considered a cosmetic change?

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    this reminded me of a public talk a few years back...
    How does this statement support your argument and in particular from your intellectual point of view?
    Last edited by eyes; 15th May 2010 at 08:02 AM.
    Tum podem extulit horridulum...日出東方﹐唯我不敗。

  11. #51

    Default Re: New CPF rules

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    i don't see how you can say that comparing apples and oranges are the same. by looking at KL alone you might as well just take a snapshot of say, workers in the banking sector in singapore. KL is the financial centre of malaysia, so the demographics will be skewed. granted you will still need support staff, etc, but certainly the proportion of high wage earners are going to be much higher than that of singapore as a whole.
    Every comparison is slightly apple to orange in nature. Let's say, if a person suspect that there is an abnormality on his right leg, does he go around looking for a perfect comparison by comparing it with his right leg again? Do you agree Singapore as a whole is rightfully a city by itself and there're no uninhabited areas and is densely populated? There's no such thing as a perfect comparison and common sense is needed- that is unless we want to say the entire UBS research team has no common sense and reeks bad judgment.

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    if you wish to use purchasing power as a means to measure wealth/utility by any means, then why not the more commonly used gdp per capita. you do note that a lot of the common arguments for gdp per capita as a flawed instrument for measurement of welfare per se do apply for purchasing power?
    Do you agree that having higher purchasing power means that the person has the ability to consume higher priced quality goods and shrinking purchasing power leads to the less ability to do the same? Unless there are evidence that proves purchasing power does not contribute to an individual's welfare, this point is not debatable.

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    you have not even broken down how this purchasing power is measured - i am presuming that ubs has merely taken a arbitiary bundle of "essential goods". firstly, i have no idea how that bundle is derived; next, countries are different, even if they include perceived essentials such as "salt" in the bundle there are different preferences across the board.. without presenting all these, how can you just take the ranking at face value? is ubs the most neutral of parties when it comes to ranking such?
    Perception and prices can vary even amongst individuals. But that does not mean that an essential good is less essential simply because it is perceived less valuable by an individual or a group. Can you cut salt totally from your diet. A bundle is chosen rather than 1 item is chosen for the obvious reason of mitigating possible skews caused by using only one variable. For the exact list of items and research methodology, please run the search engine.

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    meritocracy is also a timeless principle. absolute equality was proposed by the fundamentals and a major driving force behind communism as an optimum end-goal - look where communism is today, and where capitalism is. most of the communist countries broke themselves down from within.

    i stated that it was probably not a good idea to work towards a gini coefficient of 0. that assumes a perfectly uniform income across the board. i don't see any problems in making that statement - it is simply human nature.. if somehow the government pooled the country's income and distributed it evenly from person number 1 to person number 4 million.. one can easily see how this would lead to a general tendency to laze, since lazing requires effort, and it is better for people to laze than to work when they get the same reward.
    We are not talking about absolute social equality but striving at closing large divides in the society based on the equality principle. Do you agree that there're more opportunities for someone with a million dollars compared to another who has only a thousand dollars. The attempt is to open the doors of opportunities to the guy who has only a thousand so that he may one day become the man who has a million. Closing the income divide is not about giving the poorer man a million dollars so as to put him on par but to give him the opportunities with his thousand dollars. That said, will an average Singaporean be able to afford to go to LSE to study full time if not because of the fact he received a scholarship?

    Any principles have to work within the context of other principles and cannot be the ultimate singular goal by itself. Meritocracy has to be achieved in a socially responsible manner, do you agree?

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    so if don't use cpf, use cash. what's the difference between utilising cpf for housing and using your cash for investment now?
    The difference is that CPF would then be free from a devaluing leasehold and can be used for investment with potential growth.

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    i thought it also meant equally that people HAD to stop blaming the nanny when they were adults. yet you do not seem to speak up against the mentality that if the government does appoint your supposedly "reputable money managers", the government is to blame for shortfalls.
    In my previous post, I mentioned about collaborative appointment rather than dictatorial appointment of money managers. It is a significant difference.

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    right now i am person x, my gross pay is $2.4K. contribution to cpf is $480. OA should be $550 thereabouts.

    let's just assume that my hdb repayment installment is $1.2K and i use CPF + cash, $550 comes from CPF, $650 comes from cash after other taxes, etc. that is with the current scheme, right, i hope i do not understand wrong. please feel free to correct. after all of that, plus my expenses, i am left with an amount that i can use to invest with private investment, with "reputable money managers" if i so choose.

    now, under your proposed scheme, hdb repayment installment still remains as $1.2K. CPF stays the same, but now i cannot touch it, and the government has appointed "reputable money managers" to handle it for me. i can change these money managers if i think they are not giving me sufficient returns.

    my gross pay is still $2.4K, i still have to fork out that $1.2K installment. nothing changes.

    isn't that just a cosmetic change with more restrictions than before, since with current scheme i could possibly invested less than $550 per month into private investment (however i did it, with relative freedom).. in times where i need to spend that extra cash (e.g. mother sick, need to pay hospital bills)?

    pardon me if i get you wrong. but if i haven't, then aren't you just proposing an extremely, extremely rigid system that you claim is "better for the people"? how sure are you that this is better? do you have perfect foresight? isn't this attitude just like a nanny and the child that you abhor so much?
    Do you agree that money don't appear by itself. If you use your CPF, it is still your money used in payment. The difference is this: using CPF to fund your flat now means you took your retirement fund and lock it into a devaluing leasehold and you are liable to further pay interests for the loan from your own money; on the other hand, if you are to service your home loan without CPF being part of that loan, you free up your retirement funds for investment rather than an impending devaluation.

    Another minor point on the details is that 1.2K installment is on the high side and you don't bear it all alone since you can't own a HDB flat by yourself. Even if we take the high side of 1.2k p/m, you'll at most pay 600 p/m- that is unless if you insist that your wife stays home and be a full-time housewife.

    Is 600 or 25% of 2.4K too much for servicing a home in Singapore?

    In the same way you questioned me about poor judgment by a good bunch of people, may I ask you too on how many people are disciplined enough to put aside 500 dollars p/m for retirement investments when they are in cold hard cash?

    Do you agree that if a person is seriously sick, Medisave can be used and even transferred within family accounts? If it is a minor sickness, would it cost so much?

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    i don't think the system is perfect, but there are more important things to use as a basis for change other than principle, especially if all you have done is shift options around and clamp down harder than before.
    How does freeing up a person's retirement funds for real investments equates to "shifing options & clamping down?"

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    i also wanted to point out that your views on "pursuing an instant gratification attitude for the sake of having more immediate cash, etc" are somewhat in conflict with your idea that singapore needs to progress from a nanny-child mentality to adulthood.

    only a nanny needs to restrict and reprimand and handle the child's money by locking it into cpf for investment for retirement, instead of letting him have "instant gratification attitudes for the sake of having more immediate cash".

    or do you know people's requirements and desires better than they do? how is -that- not a nanny mentality?
    Which one sounds more nanny?

    A) You must use up all your CPF before you can apply for a HDB loan; or

    B) HDB loan can be granted without CPF utilisation and be freed for investment.
    Last edited by eyes; 15th May 2010 at 10:39 AM.
    Tum podem extulit horridulum...日出東方﹐唯我不敗。

  12. #52

    Default Re: New CPF rules

    WOW!! Thats some heavy duty pointers, but pretty amazing.

    Ok, lets rewind alittle. Regarding theonlyone mentioned about reserves of the country, how will it be used? The country definitely needs surplus & reserves, i'm not disputing that. However as a citizen, i'll be concerned if its put to good use. So far how has the people benefited from the strong GDP & surpluses directly & indirectly? How much jobs were created & how has our public services improved from the past decades of strong reserves? If its good juz for "a drop in the ocean" & "peanuts" salary for top guns, then wudn't u be concerned? Its like running a household. i keep saving tons of money by eating & using the cheapest stuff for the family (Gardenia plain white bread everyday for every meal), & at the end, reward myself for this super achievement by spending "a drop" from the savings with a hi end MF cam. Cud this money been put to better use for the family to improve the quality of life? With malnutrition, soon my surplusses will be contributed to the Drs' fast cars & bungalows. I believe in keeping a balance between building reserves & benefiting the people. If its skewed to either side too much, there'll be problems. Bizz men of cos want to max every profit opportunity, but the govt has a role too in keeping tab of them so they dun go too overboard & destroy the country. Eg, AIG, Lehman, Citibank, CIT, Goldman... etc, u get what i mean? "Maximising profit" is juz a term to disguise the word "greed"

    Coming back to the spending power... I think UBS is reputable enuf to do the survey. What
    advantage has it if they purposely skew the data to make s'pore looks bad? I'm sure other
    banks & institutions will make noise too if the data is not appropriately represented. Our
    Govt will be the 1st to sue them. And i do agree with the survey using cities as a comparison as i feel its more applicable, so perhaps using HK instead wud be a better case study in replacement of KL? Afterall, we r more similar in terms of size & population. What about NY & Zurich? SM Goh did make a commitment to the citizens that he'll want to make us have the standards of Swiss, but in the end he's juz "Secretly happy" that S'pore is now at Swiss standard of '84. How do u even measure Swiss standard in '84?

    I wud like to look at the eg, of the fresh grad again. Students entering Uni is like 20% of
    the country's students for that yr in JC & Poly, so can i make an assumption that the masses of 80% didn't have a degree & they will not have a starting pay of $2.4k to begin with? So what happens when the masses want to buy a HDB flat? Dun get me wrong, i can fully appreciate night86mare fig. for discussion sake, nothing wrong but i want to bring the discussion further. Again assuming 10% more went overseas for degree course, what is going to happen to the people who didn't make it & those with only ITE certs & below? Lets ignore the faculty & degree class for a moment. By using the same eg. of a 300k HDB, with loan 1.2k/mth, does it mean that the masses will not be able to afford public housing until maybe 10yrs later when their salary hit 2.4k? Is our nation promoting elitism to the extend that only the low end elites can buy basic public housing, mid end elites buy fancy BTO HDB & the ultimate elites buy pte condo, FTs buy grade A bungalows? Ok u can say that i'm skewed with this argument but its certainly not a scene i hope to see.

    Now let me take a shot at analysing whats the diff between using CPF & cash to pay for the flat besides eyes' point on devaluing leasehold. Besides the profit & gain, what other effects wud there be? I seriously think it wud make the citizens wake up to their spending habits. How's that so? For a start, lets look at the cars around us, there r big cars, small cars, exp cars, cheap cars, etc. Its a good mix. When i want to buy a car, i'll assess ,my financial health, "Can i afford to pay a mthly instalment of 1.8k/mth?" If i can't & needed/wanted a car, i'll go for a lower end car which is cheaper to own & maintain, with less tax & insurance (basically within my means). The whole hoohaa of such evaluation is simply becos the instalment is coming out from my pocket in the form of hard cash. Similarly, if i were to buy a flat now with hard cash, i must evaluate & see what type of flat i can afford & not something out of reach thinking CPF can take care of it. Currently, the scheme is to wipe out as much CPF as possible & u face the shortage of retirement fund. Many has a nasty shock too when they r out of job & need to fork out cash to service the loan (CPF is auto, its out of sight & out of mind), & realised the sum is huge, not something they can really afford if its serviced by cash. In scenario like this, u need the people & govt to work together. Govt need to maintain that public housing is affordable to the masses, & the people need to be more realistic with their purchase choices. U may call this wishful thinking but i feel the people will end up being more hardworking too, simply becos we can't rely on the "CPF cushion". Look at HK, i went there in '95, they r more hardworking then us, went there again in 07 & 08, they r still as hardworking & this time with good service.

    Finally, its good to see so many diff views from others. It got me thinking more & i'm sure it got others thinking as well. I dun see this as an argument so i'm not sure what's with the name calling "retard" from night86mare. Its still a discussion but only in a virtual kopitiam drinking virtual coffee instead. Its the same as a group of people seated together & talking about politics & policies around us. Nothing personal & definitely no hard feelings. There r bound to be disagreement cos there r many ways to see an issue, but hurling abuse is totally uncalled for. Be mindful & respectful to others. Respect needs to be earned, its not a given. That image not only insulted eyes for his/her contri to this discussion but also a huge humiliation to the kid featured. Have some compassion for the under-privilege mr night86mare. Let me ask crudely in return, if eyes was a retard & u engaging an argument with him/her, wudn't that make u a bigger retard? Doh!
    Last edited by nightpiper; 16th May 2010 at 01:44 AM.

  13. #53

    Default Re: New CPF rules

    time for a break.. a little clip on statistics

    Video Missing

    Video Missing

  14. #54
    Moderator ortega's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Blog Entries

    Default Re: New CPF rules

    this thread reeks of violations, please refrain

  15. #55

    Default Re: New CPF rules

    proteon, thanks for the video. very interesting, i urge eveyone to watch it.
    Objection !!!

  16. #56

    Default Re: New CPF rules

    Thx for the videos proteonXPR, Mr Leong has raised the same qn i asked, "What happens to people who belong to low & mid income?" They dun hit that starting $2.4k starting salary, then how to buy flat & start family? So it seems if u not hi class better dun start family, or else become social burden.

    But i dun quite agree with Mr Leong's opinion of the hi resale price of flats is due to high selling price from HDB themselves, i see it as HDB deliberately let the resale price go skyhigh to justify their "subsidy"

    Feel free to comment. But pls keep it within context. Thx

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts