If you are poor, just too bad...
- Thread starter DrK
- Start date
seanskye
Well-Known Member
Re: If you are poor, just too bad...
Hmmm... is this the 8 ply toilet paper? GPGT
View attachment 56926
Meek;1049987 said:
Hmmm... is this the 8 ply toilet paper? GPGT
View attachment 56926
Re: If you are poor, just too bad...
Incidentally, HK also have a wider wealth gap than Singapore.
Hong Kong Poverty Line Shows Wealth Gap With One in Five Poor - Bloomberg
"The city has a wealth gap wider than Singapore, Australia, and the U.K., though its unemployment rate for the three months ended August was just 3.3 percent."
"Singapore doesn’t have a poverty line and an estimated 6 percent to 8 percent of working households can be called “working poor,” the Straits Times reported Sept. 25, citing a report. Europe uses an at-risk-of-poverty indicator set at 60 percent of national median disposable income after accounting for social benefits."
I have a proposition - middle class/middle income, live in SG or live in HK better? I think you know the answer. Just play football with the Kowloon Club every Sunday mornings at St Wilfred and ask them why they moved here.....
davidtch said:
DrK said:
Incidentally, HK also have a wider wealth gap than Singapore.
Hong Kong Poverty Line Shows Wealth Gap With One in Five Poor - Bloomberg
"The city has a wealth gap wider than Singapore, Australia, and the U.K., though its unemployment rate for the three months ended August was just 3.3 percent."
"Singapore doesn’t have a poverty line and an estimated 6 percent to 8 percent of working households can be called “working poor,” the Straits Times reported Sept. 25, citing a report. Europe uses an at-risk-of-poverty indicator set at 60 percent of national median disposable income after accounting for social benefits."
I have a proposition - middle class/middle income, live in SG or live in HK better? I think you know the answer. Just play football with the Kowloon Club every Sunday mornings at St Wilfred and ask them why they moved here.....
Re: If you are poor, just too bad...
In a laissez-faire economy that depends on the mercy of Holding co also can have some form of social safety net. Why can't we (a managed economy) have it as well?
I agree with the living quality of Sg is better than HK. At least no need to rent room to piak piak for married couple.kenntona;1050027 said:
In a laissez-faire economy that depends on the mercy of Holding co also can have some form of social safety net. Why can't we (a managed economy) have it as well?
DrK
Well-Known Member
Re: If you are poor, just too bad...
I think most of the points here are missed. It is not about middle class or upper middle class. It is about the really poor class. I'm not sure if they are that ignorant to 'forget' the poor guys. Is saying we do not have a poverty line implying that there is no sign of poverty? Not sure what those charity shows are for then. And those TV programmes on hardships and abandoned elderlies in rented 1 bedsitters don't count?
I think most of the points here are missed. It is not about middle class or upper middle class. It is about the really poor class. I'm not sure if they are that ignorant to 'forget' the poor guys. Is saying we do not have a poverty line implying that there is no sign of poverty? Not sure what those charity shows are for then. And those TV programmes on hardships and abandoned elderlies in rented 1 bedsitters don't count?
Re: If you are poor, just too bad...
Really poor class....
Let's not read the words out of context. He did not word that there are no poor people here. He was merely saying that the poorest are not "defined as poverty class defined by the United Nations as living with less than S$1.90 a day."
Now, what can the government do?
When the news broke of an attempt to redesign the tax system to "asset rich cash poor Singaporeans" it was automatically assumed that the scheme helped the rich cohorts with landed properties and what not. But shouldn't the scheme benefit across all cohorts? And if anyone were to argue that the quantum of impact will still be more beneficial to the rich, then how else could you structure something like a reverse mortgage scheme to help the "asset rich cash poor" folks? Think about it.
In calling for equality and welfare, think about this:
~ would you be happy to fund a poor driver to buy his car (not to mention whether it is a BMW or otherwise)?
~ would you be happy to downgrade from your current car to fund another poor driver?
DrK said:
Really poor class....
Let's not read the words out of context. He did not word that there are no poor people here. He was merely saying that the poorest are not "defined as poverty class defined by the United Nations as living with less than S$1.90 a day."
Now, what can the government do?
When the news broke of an attempt to redesign the tax system to "asset rich cash poor Singaporeans" it was automatically assumed that the scheme helped the rich cohorts with landed properties and what not. But shouldn't the scheme benefit across all cohorts? And if anyone were to argue that the quantum of impact will still be more beneficial to the rich, then how else could you structure something like a reverse mortgage scheme to help the "asset rich cash poor" folks? Think about it.
In calling for equality and welfare, think about this:
~ would you be happy to fund a poor driver to buy his car (not to mention whether it is a BMW or otherwise)?
~ would you be happy to downgrade from your current car to fund another poor driver?
Red_Bean_Bun
Well-Known Member
Re: If you are poor, just too bad...
The key assumption here is help. Is that assumption correct ?
The key assumption here is help. Is that assumption correct ?
kenntona;1050213 said:
Re: If you are poor, just too bad...
Which policy did ZERO help at all?
I think the issue is the concept of equality in terms of the impact of the "assistance" - examples I have heard typically go this way "$X to the poor, might as well don't help...." Critics will nick pick anything but will not see the bigger picture. There are so many advocates to raise taxes to bridge the wealth and income gaps and structure a social welfare system to benefit the middle class and the poor. But you wouldn't wanna give up your BMWs in favour of a Vios. You wanna remain first or second social cohort.
Irony of all these arguments without understanding the Laffer Curve.
Most, if not all, have heard of the following joke:
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this -
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7
The eighth would pay $12
The ninth would pay $18
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his EQUITABLE share?
The bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. On the contrary, the poor ones also suffer from smaller benefits.
But is there really no benefit?
Red_Bean_Bun said:
Which policy did ZERO help at all?
I think the issue is the concept of equality in terms of the impact of the "assistance" - examples I have heard typically go this way "$X to the poor, might as well don't help...." Critics will nick pick anything but will not see the bigger picture. There are so many advocates to raise taxes to bridge the wealth and income gaps and structure a social welfare system to benefit the middle class and the poor. But you wouldn't wanna give up your BMWs in favour of a Vios. You wanna remain first or second social cohort.
Irony of all these arguments without understanding the Laffer Curve.
Most, if not all, have heard of the following joke:
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this -
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7
The eighth would pay $12
The ninth would pay $18
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.
“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his EQUITABLE share?
The bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. On the contrary, the poor ones also suffer from smaller benefits.
But is there really no benefit?
Red_Bean_Bun
Well-Known Member
Re: If you are poor, just too bad...
The point is not about who to help. This is about who hasn't pay yet.
From the Taxman's perspective - you have a bunch of asset rich fellows claiming to be cash poor. That value has to be unlocked but how ?
The point is not about who to help. This is about who hasn't pay yet.
From the Taxman's perspective - you have a bunch of asset rich fellows claiming to be cash poor. That value has to be unlocked but how ?
Re: If you are poor, just too bad...
One auntie of mine bought her house in the 80s, terrace/semi-D for below $500K. Freehold land. Was meant to stay, not for investment.
Another auntie inherited a 5-room unit in Toa Payoh. I think the
Today, the house is worth $4m. The flat is worth $800-900K. But still, it is their only houses.
All of a sudden, they both should be taxed and should "pay"?
I can understand the logic if there is a suggestion to encash the properties and retire in smaller and cheaper units.
But I cannot understand how the taxmen is brought into the picture.
Red_Bean_Bun said:
One auntie of mine bought her house in the 80s, terrace/semi-D for below $500K. Freehold land. Was meant to stay, not for investment.
Another auntie inherited a 5-room unit in Toa Payoh. I think the
Today, the house is worth $4m. The flat is worth $800-900K. But still, it is their only houses.
All of a sudden, they both should be taxed and should "pay"?
I can understand the logic if there is a suggestion to encash the properties and retire in smaller and cheaper units.
But I cannot understand how the taxmen is brought into the picture.
Re: If you are poor, just too bad...
we are all very altruistic when we argue on paper...but once government says lets tax the asset rich people, say, for assets worth $600k and above, we may well see the 1st true Singapore street protests ala Bangkok ones...
we are all very altruistic when we argue on paper...but once government says lets tax the asset rich people, say, for assets worth $600k and above, we may well see the 1st true Singapore street protests ala Bangkok ones...
wobbles
Well-Known Member
Re: If you are poor, just too bad...
I also cannot understand how ERP is meant to actually control vehicular traffic flow - but it has gone up to $6 @ the CTE because it does, ya? One of the great mysteries of our time, just like your question, bro.
kenntona;1050385 said:
I also cannot understand how ERP is meant to actually control vehicular traffic flow - but it has gone up to $6 @ the CTE because it does, ya? One of the great mysteries of our time, just like your question, bro.
Re: If you are poor, just too bad...
ERP is a different discussion, but hell ya, I can see the logic of not accommodating all the drivers here with car ownership. You are blessed with two cars, cause you can afford. That's the COE part, no matter how drivers who could not afford KPKB. As for ERP, I don't think anyone has a fool-proof solution. I reckon traffic jam is unique only in Singapore? What's your alternative solution?
Don't get me wrong. I have repeated this a few times. I do not agree with many of the government policies. But I could not put myself to side with alternative arguments without sound logic too.
So much easier to shoot an argument online with a single dimensional analysis and based it entirely on emotional elements.
wobbles said:
ERP is a different discussion, but hell ya, I can see the logic of not accommodating all the drivers here with car ownership. You are blessed with two cars, cause you can afford. That's the COE part, no matter how drivers who could not afford KPKB. As for ERP, I don't think anyone has a fool-proof solution. I reckon traffic jam is unique only in Singapore? What's your alternative solution?
Don't get me wrong. I have repeated this a few times. I do not agree with many of the government policies. But I could not put myself to side with alternative arguments without sound logic too.
So much easier to shoot an argument online with a single dimensional analysis and based it entirely on emotional elements.
Re: If you are poor, just too bad...
This topic was started about actual vs relative poverty and how it is perceived to be neglected by the government. I am not sure if any government can rid of absolute poverty, but I reckoned every middle class disgrunt can easily point to the squeezed make-ends-meet day-to-day living and curse the government. And we have a huge middle class population here. I am not sure when was the last time we saw homeless people on our streets - it appears that even the poorest do have a single-room HDB flat. I cannot say the same about the other developed nations. And here, in a BMW forum, we pondered on poverty issues in one thread and talked about BMW prices and M-cars in other threads. The extreme of irony in social concerns.
I am not an economist. But I observed that every single economic boom brought the wealth gap larger and larger. More and more people are left behind after each boom. This is perculiar in asset-based economy where wages remain stagnant but real asset owners enjoy a faster wealth growth. The wealth and income inequality in these countries is perhaps at its highest level for the past half century - the average income of the richest 10% of the population is about nine times that of the poorest 10% across the OECD. Other traditionally more egalitarian countries, such as Germany, Denmark and Sweden, have seen the gap between rich and poor expand from 5 to 1 in the 1980s, to 6 to 1 today. The richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000. The three richest people in the world possess more financial assets than the lowest 48 nations combined. Economic growth, property booms, technological advances, regressive taxations are all natural causes. Why are we complaining about these when we already know that we will ditch Nokia and buy a Samsung Note or an Iphone? Why can't we help Nokia since it is lagging way behind?
Is this wealth gap an evolution or a revolution?
Or is this a byproduct of capitalism from which we are selectively so unhappy about?
This topic was started about actual vs relative poverty and how it is perceived to be neglected by the government. I am not sure if any government can rid of absolute poverty, but I reckoned every middle class disgrunt can easily point to the squeezed make-ends-meet day-to-day living and curse the government. And we have a huge middle class population here. I am not sure when was the last time we saw homeless people on our streets - it appears that even the poorest do have a single-room HDB flat. I cannot say the same about the other developed nations. And here, in a BMW forum, we pondered on poverty issues in one thread and talked about BMW prices and M-cars in other threads. The extreme of irony in social concerns.
I am not an economist. But I observed that every single economic boom brought the wealth gap larger and larger. More and more people are left behind after each boom. This is perculiar in asset-based economy where wages remain stagnant but real asset owners enjoy a faster wealth growth. The wealth and income inequality in these countries is perhaps at its highest level for the past half century - the average income of the richest 10% of the population is about nine times that of the poorest 10% across the OECD. Other traditionally more egalitarian countries, such as Germany, Denmark and Sweden, have seen the gap between rich and poor expand from 5 to 1 in the 1980s, to 6 to 1 today. The richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000. The three richest people in the world possess more financial assets than the lowest 48 nations combined. Economic growth, property booms, technological advances, regressive taxations are all natural causes. Why are we complaining about these when we already know that we will ditch Nokia and buy a Samsung Note or an Iphone? Why can't we help Nokia since it is lagging way behind?
Is this wealth gap an evolution or a revolution?
Or is this a byproduct of capitalism from which we are selectively so unhappy about?
Re: If you are poor, just too bad...
In my view, I think the Government has allowed too many people to own cars in the past 10 years, and this is way more than what our infrastucture can afford. This has in turn led to congestions today. I agree with Wobbles that $5 ERP is somewhat useless when people pay $200k to own a car.
The Government has failed in both areas of car ownership and usage control in my opinon.
In my view, I think the Government has allowed too many people to own cars in the past 10 years, and this is way more than what our infrastucture can afford. This has in turn led to congestions today. I agree with Wobbles that $5 ERP is somewhat useless when people pay $200k to own a car.
The Government has failed in both areas of car ownership and usage control in my opinon.
wobbles
Well-Known Member
Re: If you are poor, just too bad...
Being the multiple-decorated internet hero keyboard warrior that I am, I just thought I'd talk about the ERP because it's the hip thing to do - I don't even drive on the CTE to ganna the $6 charge, so there
I gotta earn my internet keyboard warrior badges OK!
kenntona;1050395 said:
Being the multiple-decorated internet hero keyboard warrior that I am, I just thought I'd talk about the ERP because it's the hip thing to do - I don't even drive on the CTE to ganna the $6 charge, so there
I gotta earn my internet keyboard warrior badges OK!
