Following up on D.O.G's point that CPF is either enough or not enough to fund retirement:-
Even if CPF is enough, the government would still need tax revenue to provide for people in retirement? These old folks would pay less tax in retirement, yet someone would still need to pay for their subsidised medical care, defence, etc?
(02-02-2013, 01:39 PM)wee Wrote: [ -> ]Following up on D.O.G's point that CPF is either enough or not enough to fund retirement:-
Even if CPF is enough, the government would still need tax revenue to provide for people in retirement? These old folks would pay less tax in retirement, yet someone would still need to pay for their subsidised medical care, defence, etc?
i don't think so. GST has taken care of "everythings". Even if you are a pauper in the street, "GOH SAYS TAX". Like it or not you have to pay as you have to eat to live.
What's the problem? i am sure Papys are thinking of increasing and will be increasing GST sooner than later. This times of course Papys will say it is to subsidise their million $ pay as they have work very hard for Sink aporeans. HA! HA!
see how less honest pm lee is..extract from mr tankinlain blog
""The Prime Minister and Minister of National Development has now said that the 6.9 million population is a "worst case scenario" and is used for planning purposes.
Normally, in planning purposes, one does not just put out one scenario, especially when it is the worst case scenario and is not described as such.
There is also the risk that the tail will wag the dog. Having planned the infrastructure and public services to meet this scenario, a future Government is not likely to see these facilities being wasted, and will increase immigration to take up the vacant facilities.
It is possible to build according to our actual needs, but this has to be carefully managed.
It is better to set a lower population target (say 5.5 million) and allow the population to increase due to birth. For the next few years, we need to sort out the current problem of congestion on the road, pubic transport, hospital, schools, housing and other pubic services.
I would have preferred the Prime Minister to say, "We issued the White Paper to get the reaction of the public. The message is quite clear, that the people does not wish to have a congested place. We will ask the planners to rework out the scenario for a smaller population".
That would be more honest, isn't it?""
(31-01-2013, 11:20 PM)Share Investor Wrote: [ -> ]In terms of population density, Singapore is way lower compared to many cities in the world. With proper planning, it is should be manageble.
Spore is a country not a city. Those people in the cities still can move out to the outskirts of the country to live. We have no choices but confine within this 'city'
what do they meant by worst case scenario.....they can control the population intake.....and since they are saying that it is 'worst case' then don't allow it to happen.....don't allow so many people to come in........
so what are they talking?
I think they are trying to 'wriggle' out of the backlash.........but with time people will learn to 'accept' 6.9m...........
I think Govt should slow down on population intake now and ramp up on infrastructure....look at the poly clinics and hospitals.....Khaw recently admitted that housing is still under supply....we already cutting COE supply in order to deal with congested road.......deal with those first
if suddenly there is an epidemic, can our 'busy' hospitals cope? another one in fifty years excuse?
what about the social fabric of the country? 20 years down the road are we going to have a Singaporean Singapore.......a melting pot or a Singapore fragmented.....indians sector here, myanmar there, phillipines over there.....
slow down and let the 'digestion' works its way........
Honestly I find it strange that Govt is doing this....maybe the real reason is something else....maybe CPF.....or......are we so
rich' as claimed......well it will take 56 man years to do a proper audit......
something for all to ponder......
http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNew...98923.html
(02-02-2013, 01:09 PM)Contrarian Wrote: [ -> ]D.O.G. is indeed correct. See report below. There was a paper done on CPF last year, to respond to the lecturer points. The study concluded CPF was sufficient provided the choice of the flats are appropriate.
http://www.asiaone.com/News/Latest%2BNew...83640.html
This is the conclusion from MOM's press release on the study:
"The study shows that the majority of young Singaporeans will receive adequate payouts in retirement. It also underscores that retirement adequacy is premised on individual responsibility.
Individuals have to work consistently and make prudent decisions so as to set aside adequate savings for their retirement. In addition, the findings of the study are an important validation of the CPF system. "
a person who just confessed the govt did not have the 20/20 foresight for the present stage congestion & overcrowding due to population boom in the last 10 years... (where there is not even any 'foresight' as per said to begin with/confess ..pls see d.o.g. previous post on the said foresight)
to think shortly after this confession now that same person is coming out with another grandplan to up the population further, how can we trust such a person to make sure infrastructure will be ready?
futher more, ica, mom and many other govt agencies need to tighten their control...the past 10 years we seen news of private agencies, employment agencies in cartoons with foreigners to land a place/pr/citizenship here, using kickbacks, fake degree, under-table means..have they already solve this problem?
my fear is that the next wave of immigrants will contain many fakes as well.
GIC loss big time in buying Banks in EU ans US , so they have to do whatever to cover this big hole.
Sometimes I simply do not understand why do Singapore need to continue growing and be the number 1 in everything it does? Does slow growth really means detriment to its average citizens? Well, I do know that fast growth is extremely important for the rich and connected (including political families).
Anyway, it is my opinion that Singapore will inevitably merge with Malaysia for the simple sake of resources. Maybe I will not be able to see it during my lifetime though.
I want to share my story on how I contribute to the increase in GDP when people are packed more densely.
My MIL moved from an old HDB to a new one that is just 800m away. The old one had open car parks and was built to a 10-storey height. The new one has 40 storeys and a MSCP (10 storey).
Here's the GDP difference.
Before:
Park the car, walk to the lift and go up the flat.
Time taken, 3-5 min
Now:
1. Round and round and up the poorly designed CP. Up even more to get to the white lots during weekends.
2. Wait for the CP lift, take the lift down, and walk to the other lift.
3. Take the lift up to the flat.
Time taken, >8 min
So, by packing more people in an estate, even without producing anything useful I contributed to the GDP growth by burning more petrol (consumption). That's absolutely wasteful to both resources and on my own time which could be used to do real work. Multiply that wastage by hundreds or more trips made by all cars for that CP in one day. Multiply that by 365 days. Multiply that by the number of such CPs in Singapore. That's plenty of wasteful GDP. But it counts.
Of course, some will argue that because I have wasted that much (petrol and time), I will have to earn back by pedaling harder elsewhere to balance the deficit, and hence contributing yet again to the GDP and economy. However, the important point to note is that GDP measures activities but not progress!
To quote WB, "If I wanted to, I could hire 10,000 people to do nothing but paint my picture every day for the rest of my life. And the GDP would go up. But the utility of the product would be zilch, and I would be keeping those 10,000 people from doing AIDS research, or teaching, or nursing."