View Full Version : CM6 is still possible
I have just come back from a short visit to China. The cooling measure there is unbelievable:
1) If you are not the resident of the city, you simply cannot buy property for that city;
2) Even if you are the resident of the city, for 2nd property, you can only make 50% loan. When asked for a bank, they simply replied their loan quota has been used up. So no loan for 2nd property;
3) In resale market, it is almost impossible to get loan even for 1st property if the property is 10 years old (that is 60 years lease left).
Have the price of the property in China drop? Surprisingly not many people selling. Those holding multiple properties are fully paid up. The price "drop" is mainly because new properties are in more remote area (1.5 hr by train rather than 1 hr by train.)
I was shocked by Singapore government CM5 before I visited China. But now, when we benchmark on an international level, CM6 is still possible:
CREDIT will be made less available for non-Singaporeans.
Thanks,
Richard
Bro Rich, you convert to Singaporean or PR already right?
Btw you should go tell the other guy your findings of the "drop" in china pty market. ;)
And seriously, no one really understands the china pty phenomenon. This is a country where it's a norm to buy pty in full cash.
So dun compare that with SG.
China is a different market.
1. They dun like to buy second hand properties (other than some prime properties in tier 1 cities) even it is never been occupied before, as no face which is very important
2. Peer pressure in owning properties
3. Huge supply, new supply from developers. The size of their projects run into >10,000 units in a condo project. Somehow, they only believe in buying properties from developers.
4. Too much cash, and they dun trust the banks. So properties is more tangiable.
5. Properties can be passed on to their children.
Currently, the number of completed vacant properties should be around 65m units.
The cooling measures in China are very very hash and there is some more downside.
As for foreigners, I understand there are ways to buy....if u dare to do it...
I have been in Singapore for 18 years. And yes, I am a Singapore citizen now.
My point is when China has such a strict restrictions of buying properties, the money will flow to Singapore.
I took Singapore Airlines with my son (who is a true Singaporean - only trust SQ). I didn't realize how serious the problem is.
My wife took China Airlines. She told me more than half of the passengers are rich Chinese kids attending O Level English preparation schools here. I won't be surprised some of their parents will find 10% Additional Stamp Duty is nothing compared with the measures in China. So they will still buy the property here.
The fixed deposit rate in China is 3% for 3-month, and 5% for 5-year. The property loan rate is 7% there. With 1% loan rate here, it's possible they will make a loan for "carry trade" or buy better property.
So CM6 is likely to cut the credit for foreigners.
Thanks,
Richard
If Euro crisis hit, there no CM6 at least for a long long time. :cool:
If Euro crisis hit, there no CM6 at least for a long long time. :cool:
Cm3 and 4 will probably be lifted as well..
If the global sh@t hits the fan, all CMs will be taken out, and "Heating Measures" implemented.:)
By then, too late! "Heating Measures" may be useless, look at past experience from 2001-2005. All "heating measures" useless until global economy pick up!
When price can move up they cap them with stupid policies, when price crash they implement all sort of "heating policies" also useless until global economy recovers! Ops! :doh:
How I hope the GE is held in Jan 2013 after the price crash! Will be super interesting! The person who said to mastermind CM5 will be??? :p
If the global sh@t hits the fan, all CMs will be taken out, and "Heating Measures" implemented.:)
ikan bilis
06-01-12, 09:46
If Euro crisis hit, there no CM6 at least for a long long time. :cool:
Cm3 and 4 will probably be lifted as well..
If the global sh@t hits the fan, all CMs will be taken out, and "Heating Measures" implemented.:)
hahaha.... i like you guys !!... :cheers4:
but, from the way usa+europe+japan is printing $$,... i'm expecting at least got cm6 & cm7 coming... :scared-3: :scared-3:
hahaha.... i like you guys !!... :cheers4:
but, from the way usa+europe+japan is printing $$,... i'm expecting at least got cm6 & cm7 coming... :scared-3: :scared-3:Europe is still the biggest question mark... Not too worried about the other 2 countries. :47:
rattydrama
06-01-12, 10:25
Our Ah Tiong will help soak up. In 2001-2005 we dont have rich Ah Tiong here.
In China, was told, u walk on the street any moment can hit a multi- millionaire.
By then, too late! "Heating Measures" may be useless, look at past experience from 2001-2005. All "heating measures" useless until global economy pick up!
When price can move up they cap them with stupid policies, when price crash they implement all sort of "heating policies" also useless until global economy recovers! Ops! :doh:
How I hope the GE is held in Jan 2013 after the price crash! Will be super interesting! The person who said to mastermind CM5 will be??? :p
rattydrama
06-01-12, 10:28
Europe is still the biggest question mark... Not too worried about the other 2 countries. :47:
tourism is still suffering in Japan. Yen moved up so much probably due to investors hoarding up the Yen and insurance company need to pay in Yen.
should buy some yen in March 2010.
Property prices in Beijing up 500% as compared to S'pore up 50% for the last 5-years..
CM for China is understandabe.. but for S'pore, need to increase more CM meh?
hahaha.... i like you guys !!... :cheers4:
but, from the way usa+europe+japan is printing $$,... i'm expecting at least got cm6 & cm7 coming... :scared-3: :scared-3:
so you think prices are still going up until cm6 & cm7? quick buy! :D
huat ah!:cheers1:
ikan bilis
06-01-12, 13:17
so you think prices are still going up until cm6 & cm7? quick buy! :D
huat ah!:cheers1:
hahaha... you already kena caught jialat jialat in CM1-CM5 liow.... what's the use of buying now and kena 16% SSD lock down 4yrs, dead resale market make you can buy from developer and cannot sell, and another 3% ABSD...
coming next CM6 will be to squeeze those with more than 1 property, CM7 will be to squeeze all pte properties owners, CM8 will be to freeze the market completely, plus CM9.... hahaha... :banghead:
thomastansb
06-01-12, 13:20
To add on, CM have never been effective when economy is sailing. To me, CM5 is not going to be effective at all. CM5 just undermine meritocracy. I work hard, I earn more, I get penalised for buying private properties. It has to be one of the worst decision by PAP so far.
By then, too late! "Heating Measures" may be useless, look at past experience from 2001-2005. All "heating measures" useless until global economy pick up!
When price can move up they cap them with stupid policies, when price crash they implement all sort of "heating policies" also useless until global economy recovers! Ops! :doh:
How I hope the GE is held in Jan 2013 after the price crash! Will be super interesting! The person who said to mastermind CM5 will be??? :p
Have the price of the property in China drop? Surprisingly not many people selling. Those holding multiple properties are fully paid up. The price "drop" is mainly because new properties are in more remote area (1.5 hr by train rather than 1 hr by train.)
i just came back from SH as well, their lease 50 or 70 yrs. Heard from my SH friend that SH ppty prices are flat at the moment. i told him i read reports that price dropping 20%<, next day he drove me out abt 1hr drive on highway to the outskirts & told me these are the ones dropping. Wah lau blocks & blocks of empty apts, no amentities, no supermkt, no shops, no public transport. i asked him w/o cars no way to access here right? He smiled.
To add on, CM have never been effective when economy is sailing. To me, CM5 is not going to be effective at all. CM5 just undermine meritocracy. I work hard, I earn more, I get penalised for buying private properties. It has to be one of the worst decision by PAP so far.
Totally agree. PC are for the 20% ..........
Gov should take care of the low income ones than the kpkb.
PAP has definitely lost my vote in the next GE.
To add on, CM have never been effective when economy is sailing. To me, CM5 is not going to be effective at all. CM5 just undermine meritocracy. I work hard, I earn more, I get penalised for buying private properties. It has to be one of the worst decision by PAP so far.
rattydrama
06-01-12, 16:40
PAP has definitely lost my vote in the next GE.
how can bring back your votes?
All I ask is that they practise what they preach. If they advocate meritocracy, then their policies should be reflective of that. However, if they no longer advocate meritocracy, they should publicly retract what they have been expounding all these years.
挂羊皮卖狗肉 is definitely not going to win public confidence.
how can bring back your votes?
:banghead: they hv the CM, but on other hand, when developer bids land at lower price (paya lebar), then they dun award....
hahaha... you already kena caught jialat jialat in CM1-CM5 liow.... what's the use of buying now and kena 16% SSD lock down 4yrs, dead resale market make you can buy from developer and cannot sell, and another 3% ABSD...
coming next CM6 will be to squeeze those with more than 1 property, CM7 will be to squeeze all pte properties owners, CM8 will be to freeze the market completely, plus CM9.... hahaha... :banghead:
Actually the CMs 1 to 3 didn't deter me. The earlier CMs are targeted at flippers, have little or no impact on long term investors. CM3 30% downpayment was harsh, but I still bought.
The property that I got under CM3 has gone up at least 20%, and giving me good yield. I'm happy with my purchase and will continue to hold it for the long term. so I'm not "kena caught jialat jialat in CM1-CM5".
CM4's 40% downpayment was too much.... also no more bullets after the last purchase. Currently accumulating bullets.... so CM5 may do what the CMs are supposed to do, bring prices down.... then I can buy again.... hehehe.....:D
Meanwhile... window shopping continues....:)
All I ask is that they practise what they preach. If they advocate meritocracy, then their policies should be reflective of that. However, if they no longer advocate meritocracy, they should publicly retract what they have been expounding all these years.
挂羊皮卖狗肉 is definitely not going to win public confidence.
This is not a political post.
But I think you may have misunderstood the meaning of "meritocracy" which pertains to reward and promotion based on talent and competence.
Why in your opinion are the cooling measure a renunciation of meritocracy?
Thanks for your post.
My interpretation and understanding of meritocracy is "the provision of equal opportunities in the environment for development, growth and progress to all participants, regardless of their background, creed and color; the allowance for outcomes based on individual capability and performance in the system".
The key idea in this is "equal opportunity". The opposing idealogy is "equal outcome" which refers to "the push for similar, if not identical, results for all participants regardless of their background, creed and color".
Both "equal opportunity" and "equal outcome" are mutually exclusive because their bases are totally inverse of each other.
Over the years, the message that has been communicated (repeatedly drilled) to the people is that meritocracy is the way forward and that everyone should be given access to the same opportunities while their performance and capabilities will determine their rewards.
The cooling measures negate the principles of "equal opportunity" by adjusting the playing field based on the traits of the individual participant. No longer is the individual participant given the right to perform based on his resources and abilities (in the property market). Instead, he is penalised for having exceeded an invisible threshold which is determined by the state.
My view is that are two ways of carrying out market equalisation. The first approach is top-down by slowing down those leading the pack. This appears to be the motivation behind the implementation of the cooling measures. The second approach is bottom-up by granting/increasing advantages to those who are trailing so that they have a better chance of catching up.
Between the two, the latter requires more time to take effect because it is also dependent on the willingness and industriousness of those who are trailing to utilise the advantages effectively. However it is fairer across the board than the former because it does not directly penalise the leading participants.
Last but not least, consistency is important when it comes to policies. This is because this affects the view that the world has of our country. For years, the world has seen Singapore as a transparent and politically consistent country that allows for equal opportunities atop an objective platform. The latest cooling measures have turned that view upside-down and expose us to the risk of being bundled into the same heap as the rest of our neighbours.
If our stand now is that social welfare takes precedence over meritocracy, it is important that the message be clearly spelt out so that there is no ambiguity. This will go the distance and reduce uncertainties in the property market instead of casting shadows that vary according to the time of day. The reduction of uncertainties will help to set a clearer direction for all who intend to buy/sell for investment or own-stay.
Having said all these, I would like to clarify that there is a third group in the considerations - the physically and mentally handicapped who lack the essentials necessary to compete in this environment. This group should be taken care of by the state and they should not be subject to the ideals of meritocracy.
Should you manage to finish reading the WOT (wall-of-text) above, a big thank you for your time and patience.
This is not a political post.
But I think you may have misunderstood the meaning of "meritocracy" which pertains to reward and promotion based on talent and competence.
Why in your opinion are the cooling measure a renunciation of meritocracy?
Thank you for an interesting read.
Alas, our contention lies with the definition of "meritocracy" and thus cannot be resolved.
My idea of meritocracy is a system that advances people with ability as opposed to one that advances those with wealth. In that respect, the cooling measure is not an affront to meritocracy.
It can be argued that one with ability would invariably acquire wealth and hence be penalised by the cooling measure. This indirect link in my opinion would be incorrect because people with no abilty can be wealthy and people with ability may not be wealthy.
If you look at most tax systems(including Singapore), you will see that the higher your income, the higher the tax rate. Would you consider this a violation of meritocracy?... Of course not.
Thanks for your reply.
I agree that there are differences in our interpretation of meritocracy and that these are probably the roots of our differences in opinions.
For discussion purposes, do you agree with the following premises?
i. Those who possess wealth but do not have the ability will quickly lose it.
ii. Those with ability will be able to surmount difficulties faced when trying to grow their wealth.
If so, in time there should be convergence of the two i.e. the ones with ability will also become the ones who are wealthy (provided of course that they are interested in wealth in the first place). This is the primary consequence of a capitalist system.
Perhaps I am just being pedantic but my grouse with the policy-makers is not that they have implemented the cooling measures but that the nature of these measures is not in keeping with the messages that they had been putting forth (meritocracy, pro-investment, etc).
Income tax has always been part and parcel of living and working in Singapore. Any one who earns an income, be he wealthy or not, is well aware of the existence of the tiered structure of this form of taxation. The rules are laid out before him and he begins the journey of wealth creation with the understanding that high income earners will be taxed more than the rest.
Though we have our differences in opinions, I really appreciate the effort that you have made in keeping this discussion amicable.
Thank you for an interesting read.
Alas, our contention lies with the definition of "meritocracy" and thus cannot be resolved.
My idea of meritocracy is a system that advances people with ability as opposed to one that advances those with wealth. In that respect, the cooling measure is not an affront to meritocracy.
It can be argued that one with ability would invariably acquire wealth and hence be penalised by the cooling measure. This indirect link in my opinion would be incorrect because people with no abilty can be wealthy and people with ability may not be wealthy.
If you look at most tax systems(including Singapore), you will see that the higher your income, the higher the tax rate. Would you consider this a violation of meritocracy?... Of course not.
I think a suggestion would be to bring this up during the meet the people seesion which is a MP regular activity, maybe he would be able to explain more...based on garmen view on meritocracy in a borader context in respect of running a country...:o
Thanks for your post.
My interpretation and understanding of meritocracy is "the provision of equal opportunities in the environment for development, growth and progress to all participants, regardless of their background, creed and color; the allowance for outcomes based on individual capability and performance in the system".
The key idea in this is "equal opportunity". The opposing idealogy is "equal outcome" which refers to "the push for similar, if not identical, results for all participants regardless of their background, creed and color".
Both "equal opportunity" and "equal outcome" are mutually exclusive because their bases are totally inverse of each other.
Over the years, the message that has been communicated (repeatedly drilled) to the people is that meritocracy is the way forward and that everyone should be given access to the same opportunities while their performance and capabilities will determine their rewards.
The cooling measures negate the principles of "equal opportunity" by adjusting the playing field based on the traits of the individual participant. No longer is the individual participant given the right to perform based on his resources and abilities (in the property market). Instead, he is penalised for having exceeded an invisible threshold which is determined by the state.
My view is that are two ways of carrying out market equalisation. The first approach is top-down by slowing down those leading the pack. This appears to be the motivation behind the implementation of the cooling measures. The second approach is bottom-up by granting/increasing advantages to those who are trailing so that they have a better chance of catching up.
Between the two, the latter requires more time to take effect because it is also dependent on the willingness and industriousness of those who are trailing to utilise the advantages effectively. However it is fairer across the board than the former because it does not directly penalise the leading participants.
Last but not least, consistency is important when it comes to policies. This is because this affects the view that the world has of our country. For years, the world has seen Singapore as a transparent and politically consistent country that allows for equal opportunities atop an objective platform. The latest cooling measures have turned that view upside-down and expose us to the risk of being bundled into the same heap as the rest of our neighbours.
If our stand now is that social welfare takes precedence over meritocracy, it is important that the message be clearly spelt out so that there is no ambiguity. This will go the distance and reduce uncertainties in the property market instead of casting shadows that vary according to the time of day. The reduction of uncertainties will help to set a clearer direction for all who intend to buy/sell for investment or own-stay.
Having said all these, I would like to clarify that there is a third group in the considerations - the physically and mentally handicapped who lack the essentials necessary to compete in this environment. This group should be taken care of by the state and they should not be subject to the ideals of meritocracy.
Should you manage to finish reading the WOT (wall-of-text) above, a big thank you for your time and patience.
i think you have chosen to apply the concept of meritocracy and "equal opportunity" in the manner that suits your argument.
But meritocracy is not the issue here. The basis of ABSD is one of taxation. Do u tax the rich more than the poor, both the same, or the rich less and the poor more? That's the issue. :)
can still buy, just don't expect to sell in 4 years and have the developer absorb that 3% for you.
But meritocracy is not the issue here. The basis of ABSD is one of taxation. Do u tax the rich more than the poor, both the same, or the rich less and the poor more? That's the issue. :)
Taxing the rich more to help the poor is the result AFTER u practice meritocracy. Because meritocracy allows any one with capability to get rich faster, and richer. After that the state takes over the role for redistribution for the society.
In this case the gov attempts to stop the one with capability to get richer.
If the gov had wanted to tax the rich more, it could simply have increased the pty tax, or income tax for higher brackets.
ABSD is more like a deterrent, not a tax
Taxing the rich more to help the poor is the result AFTER u practice meritocracy. Because meritocracy allows any one with capability to get rich faster, and richer. After that the state takes over the role for redistribution for the society.
In this case the gov attempts to stop the one with capability to get richer.
If the gov had wanted to tax the rich more, it could simply have increased the pty tax, or income tax for higher brackets.
ABSD is more like a deterrent, not a tax
higher income bracket attracts more tax. Has this deterred anyone from trying to reach a higher income bracket? same principle applies for ABSD. :)
personally i am not for CM6, but i can understand its necessity. Those of us who are investors and in the first place hold mulitple properties shld be financially nimble enough to stomach such financial risks.
Taxing the rich more to help the poor...
This reminds me of a story I've read recently:
----
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little..
The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that.
Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.
These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
Where got same? :doh:
For income tax, if I earn more I am willing to pay more tax.
For ABSD, even before I make any money (I could have lost lots of money), and expect me to pay 10% tax upfront? :banghead:
Furthermore, if I have ability to buy, why should I pay ABSD for buying more properties just because some people can't and CPCB for govt to help them make properties cheaper for them to buy? :tsk-tsk:
Investors is willing to shoulder any risk, but not when the rules say you are category A (e.g. Foreigners) you must pay 10% more tax! You are category B (eg PRs) you must pay more tax after buying more than 1 property! Worst still, you may be in Category A but you are citizens of a specific few country (eg USA) you can be exempted from this same tax!!! :doh:
higher income bracket attracts more tax. Has this deterred anyone from trying to reach a higher income bracket? same principle applies for ABSD. :)
personally i am not for CM6, but i can understand its necessity. Those of us who are investors and in the first place hold mulitple properties shld be financially nimble enough to stomach such financial risks.
...
Between the two, the latter requires more time to take effect because it is also dependent on the willingness and industriousness of those who are trailing to utilise the advantages effectively. However it is fairer across the Last but not least, consistency is important when it comes to policies. This is because this affects the view that the world has of our country. For years, the world has seen Singapore as a transparent and politically consistent country that allows for equal opportunities atop an objective platform. The latest cooling measures have turned that view upside-down and expose us to the risk of being bundled into the same heap as the rest of our neighbours.
...
Yes i did finish reading every word, and my first thoughts were the I word - Inconsistent (not Idiots!!) right before you also mentioned it in your prose.
I have described meritocracy as I have construed it and my argument is based on that interpretation, not the other way around as you have suggested.
My personal take on ABSD and general taxation is that they arise from different needs/intentions and therefore the natures of the two are not the same. ABSD serves primarily to equalise (and flatten) the market while the primary aim of general taxation is income generation for the state. Although there are overlaps, the motivation for each is dissimilar.
In line with this point of argument, the nature of ABSD violates meritocracy as I understand it while that of general taxation does not.
i think you have chosen to apply the concept of meritocracy and "equal opportunity" in the manner that suits your argument.
But meritocracy is not the issue here. The basis of ABSD is one of taxation. Do u tax the rich more than the poor, both the same, or the rich less and the poor more? That's the issue. :)
Please do not get me wrong. While I am highlighting the inappropriateness of the CMs (particularly CM5) due to the counter-meritocratic nature (per my understanding), I am sure those who are affected by it would have adjusted (or are adjusting) their strategies to mitigate its effects. The irony of the situation is that these measures may eventually hurt those that they were meant to placate (first-time buyers rushing in to fill the void in the market created by the exodus of the more experienced investors).
higher income bracket attracts more tax. Has this deterred anyone from trying to reach a higher income bracket? same principle applies for ABSD. :)
personally i am not for CM6, but i can understand its necessity. Those of us who are investors and in the first place hold mulitple properties shld be financially nimble enough to stomach such financial risks.
This is a very well-written piece of writing and it does an excellent job in highlighting the flaws of socialism and communism which in effect are idealogies based on "equal outcomes". Communism is very attractive in its ideals - everyone receives equally. However as reality has demonstrated, it can only work well in an ant's nest.
The main issue with socialism and communism (as what Eastboy's article has clearly shown) lies in human nature - envy and sloth:
Why should I work hard if my neighbour gets the same reward without working as hard?
This reminds me of a story I've read recently:
----
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little..
The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that.
Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.
These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
blackjack21trader
09-01-12, 05:20
I am amazed at the great stuffs brothers here are churning out. either you guys should be in positions of leadership or otherwise it will be a total waste of your insightful minds.
your most handsome brother here have gained another level by reading this thread :)
Thank You.
I have described meritocracy as I have construed it and my argument is based on that interpretation, not the other way around as you have suggested.
My personal take on ABSD and general taxation is that they arise from different needs/intentions and therefore the natures of the two are not the same. ABSD serves primarily to equalise (and flatten) the market while the primary aim of general taxation is income generation for the state. Although there are overlaps, the motivation for each is dissimilar.
In line with this point of argument, the nature of ABSD violates meritocracy as I understand it while that of general taxation does not.
meritocracy in the ordinary and accepted meaning of the concept applies to the accordment of responsibilities and appointments based on individual merit.
does having more $$ than others makes one a more meritorius individual? of cos not. When an individual acquires factors of production (land, property etc, and not appointments or positions), meritocracy also does not come into play at all, bcos as long as u can pay it is yours. When u go buy a car or a bag of potatoes, do u have to proof any individual merit before u are allowed to buy? of cos not. Another e.g. bigger capacity cars have to pay higher COE, are you going to it is also an assault on meritocracy? :)
so the distinction in my mind is quite clear. bringing in meritocracy is not logical and obfuscates the issue.
This is a very well-written piece of writing and it does an excellent job in highlighting the flaws of socialism and communism which in effect are idealogies based on "equal outcomes". Communism is very attractive in its ideals - everyone receives equally. However as reality has demonstrated, it can only work well in an ant's nest.
The main issue with socialism and communism (as what Eastboy's article has clearly shown) lies in human nature - envy and sloth:
Why should I work hard if my neighbour gets the same reward without working as hard?
the article is mischevious and are the kind of exaggerated misinformation that comes out from the political right. Obama's plans are nothing near communism or socialism. Communism and socialism means the nationalisation of all facotrs of production. Is this the case at all? Of cos not. The Republicans or political right in the US traditonally serve the interests of corporates and the rich. This group have powerful lobbies and well-funded think tanks. And they will kpkb in the face of any policy changes that are not beneficial to their backers. :D
This forum has socio-political analyst as well. Interesting points.
That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
Lol. The whole test is based on a false premise. Obama = Socialism? This assertion has been debunked over and over again.:doh:
Well said Eastboy,
This scenario also exactly has the same application to a family nucleus' financial support / provision in excess to their offsprings, rendering them incompetent to face the real rat race world out there
This reminds me of a story I've read recently:
----
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little..
The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that.
Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.
These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
Hi Samsara,
IMHO August's correctly defines the concept of meritocracy. A quick check on the dictionary would also support his description.
Whether the cooling measures are fair or not will depend on who you are asking, but in my view it is not an attack on meritocracy.
meritocracy in the ordinary and accepted meaning of the concept applies to the accordment of responsibilities and appointments based on individual merit.
does having more $$ than others makes one a more meritorius individual? of cos not. When an individual acquires factors of production (land, property etc, and not appointments or positions), meritocracy also does not come into play at all, bcos as long as u can pay it is yours. When u go buy a car or a bag of potatoes, do u have to proof any individual merit before u are allowed to buy? of cos not. Another e.g. bigger capacity cars have to pay higher COE, are you going to it is also an assault on meritocracy? :)
so the distinction in my mind is quite clear. bringing in meritocracy is not logical and obfuscates the issue.
Just for discussion,
I generally agree with what you have written.
However, the distinct divergence of our views lie in wealth being an indication of ability. The idea of meritocracy precisely separates wealth from being an advantage for advancement.
Cheers!
Thanks for your reply.
I agree that there are differences in our interpretation of meritocracy and that these are probably the roots of our differences in opinions.
For discussion purposes, do you agree with the following premises?
i. Those who possess wealth but do not have the ability will quickly lose it.
ii. Those with ability will be able to surmount difficulties faced when trying to grow their wealth.
If so, in time there should be convergence of the two i.e. the ones with ability will also become the ones who are wealthy (provided of course that they are interested in wealth in the first place). This is the primary consequence of a capitalist system.
Perhaps I am just being pedantic but my grouse with the policy-makers is not that they have implemented the cooling measures but that the nature of these measures is not in keeping with the messages that they had been putting forth (meritocracy, pro-investment, etc).
Income tax has always been part and parcel of living and working in Singapore. Any one who earns an income, be he wealthy or not, is well aware of the existence of the tiered structure of this form of taxation. The rules are laid out before him and he begins the journey of wealth creation with the understanding that high income earners will be taxed more than the rest.
Though we have our differences in opinions, I really appreciate the effort that you have made in keeping this discussion amicable.
Hi Bros Howgozit and August,
Thanks for replying.
I appreciate the time and effort put in by that those who have been involved in the brief debate. I believe the points that I have put forward quite clearly illustrate my personal interpretation of meritocracy and I am sorry if it does not align with yours.
The idealogy of meritocracy has evolved greatly over the years and it may not be viable to depend on just a dictionary for its exact definition and breadth of scope. If you do a quick check on the various dictionaries available online, you will find various meanings offered. The majority define it as what you and bro August have cited. There is however a handful whose definitions are closer to my interpretations.
Nevertheless, as it would be pointless to launch a debate over which dictionaries are legitimate and which are not, I believe we can leave the discussion as it is and just keep our minds open to possibilities from both ends.
Ultimately, what is important for Singapore as a nation is that the system of governance and policy-making is based on a robust and sound platform with principles grounded in a clearly defined set of idealogies and beliefs. I am not dogmatic about meritocracy, it is only a set of idealogies, no more.
Thanks and wishing you all a good day ahead.
Hi Samsara,
IMHO August's correctly defines the concept of meritocracy. A quick check on the dictionary would also support his description.
Whether the cooling measures are fair or not will depend on who you are asking, but in my view it is not an attack on meritocracy.
Thanks and cheers!
Just for discussion,
I generally agree with what you have written.
However, the distinct divergence of our views lie in wealth being an indication of ability. The idea of meritocracy precisely separates wealth from being an advantage for advancement.
Cheers!
This is a very well-written piece of writing and it does an excellent job in highlighting the flaws of socialism and communism which in effect are idealogies based on "equal outcomes". Communism is very attractive in its ideals - everyone receives equally. However as reality has demonstrated, it can only work well in an ant's nest.
The main issue with socialism and communism (as what Eastboy's article has clearly shown) lies in human nature - envy and sloth:
Why should I work hard if my neighbour gets the same reward without working as hard?
Thanks bros Samsara and Eastboy for the insightful prose.
May i ask one question?
For landlords who are sitting around doing nothing really collecting rent and living off it, are they considered leeches of society then? (note well in this case, that they have worked hard to get where they are owning multiple properties)
From the productivity sense, i am inclined to say yes.
But from the fact that they have once actively contributed to the society while working, and now still pay income and property tax to contribute to Nation building, i would say that they are not.
What say you? Leech or not?
Cannot say like that mah, why call Leech? The landlords are also doing own business, providing properties out for rental. Without them, those foreigners & PRs got to live in HDB void deck or under the tents right?
That is why I say CM5 about imposing additional taxes on people who buy 3rd properties for Citizens are totally wrong!!! Those people buying 3rd properties if they can afford and they then provide rental housing, why stop them? :banghead:
That whoever mastermind that CM is interfering in free market! :simmering:
Then why don't they impose additional taxes on companies buying more retail, commercial, industrial properties? If they buy more they are monopolising and causing rentals to jack up and inflation to shoot up right? All those REITs, they are the chief culprit of over-heating inflation for jacking rentals due to their monopolising power when they act together! These people & companies are producing very bad effects on lifes of average Singaporeans compared to foreigners buying 1st property & citizens buying 3rd property!!! Why don't govt act on them??? :simmering:
Thanks bros Samsara and Eastboy for the insightful prose.
May i ask one question?
For landlords who are sitting around doing nothing really collecting rent and living off it, are they considered leeches of society then? (note well in this case, that they have worked hard to get where they are owning multiple properties)
From the productivity sense, i am inclined to say yes.
But from the fact that they have once actively contributed to the society while working, and now still pay income and property tax to contribute to Nation building, i would say that they are not.
What say you? Leech or not?
Hi Bro 1976,
I would not call them leeches of society. The reason why tenants are paying them rental is because these landlords provide a facility/utility which the former is able to use for their own purposes be it lodging, business operations, etc. In many cases, the landlord also functions as the party providing maintenance of the facility/utility. Thus there is still value creation by landlords.
Thanks bros Samsara and Eastboy for the insightful prose.
May i ask one question?
For landlords who are sitting around doing nothing really collecting rent and living off it, are they considered leeches of society then? (note well in this case, that they have worked hard to get where they are owning multiple properties)
From the productivity sense, i am inclined to say yes.
But from the fact that they have once actively contributed to the society while working, and now still pay income and property tax to contribute to Nation building, i would say that they are not.
What say you? Leech or not?
Cannot say like that mah, why call Leech? The landlords are also doing own business, providing properties out for rental. Without them, those foreigners & PRs got to live in HDB void deck or under the tents right?
That is why I say CM5 about imposing additional taxes on people who buy 3rd properties for Citizens are totally wrong!!! Those people buying 3rd properties if they can afford and they then provide rental housing, why stop them? :banghead:
That whoever mastermind that CM is interfering in free market! :simmering:
Then why don't they impose additional taxes on companies buying more retail, commercial, industrial properties? If they buy more they are monopolising and causing rentals to jack up and inflation to shoot up right? All those REITs, they are the chief culprit of over-heating inflation for jacking rentals due to their monopolising power when they act together! These people & companies are producing very bad effects on lifes of average Singaporeans compared to foreigners buying 1st property & citizens buying 3rd property!!! Why don't govt act on them??? :simmering:
Hmmm FEO came up when i read that... But....but... They own and control and constantly push out so many new projects and up the psf of each area they 'touch', shouldnt the gahmen go after them?
Hi Bro 1976,
I would not call them leeches of society. The reason why tenants are paying them rental is because these landlords provide a facility/utility which the former is able to use for their own purposes be it lodging, business operations, etc. In many cases, the landlord also functions as the party providing maintenance of the facility/utility. Thus there is still value creation by landlords.
Ok i can rest happy now... Coz i m one of them muahahaha :P
I was once a tenant too, until i realised why not use the money to pay for own house...
Ha ha ha! First thing came to my mind when it comes to their policies: Introduce Tax lor! (That seems to be the only thing they know how to do). :p
Then FEO jack up the price again and pass them to consumers! :doh:
Isn't it the same with transport? Transport companies blundered. So penalize them money! Then transport companies request to raise fare price in name of improving efficiency and waiting time and reliability blah blah blah. All costs passed back to consumers and the average singaporeans! :simmering:
Hmmm FEO came up when i read that... But....but... They own and control and constantly push out so many new projects and up the psf of each area they 'touch', shouldnt the gahmen go after them?
If landlords collecting rent are leeches, then minority shareholders collecting dividends from the shares that they invested in are also leeches? hehe welcome to the leech club, leech bros and sis. :cheers1:
Hi Bros Howgozit and August,
Thanks for replying.
I appreciate the time and effort put in by that those who have been involved in the brief debate. I believe the points that I have put forward quite clearly illustrate my personal interpretation of meritocracy and I am sorry if it does not align with yours.
The idealogy of meritocracy has evolved greatly over the years and it may not be viable to depend on just a dictionary for its exact definition and breadth of scope. If you do a quick check on the various dictionaries available online, you will find various meanings offered. The majority define it as what you and bro August have cited. There is however a handful whose definitions are closer to my interpretations.
Nevertheless, as it would be pointless to launch a debate over which dictionaries are legitimate and which are not, I believe we can leave the discussion as it is and just keep our minds open to possibilities from both ends.
Ultimately, what is important for Singapore as a nation is that the system of governance and policy-making is based on a robust and sound platform with principles grounded in a clearly defined set of idealogies and beliefs. I am not dogmatic about meritocracy, it is only a set of idealogies, no more.
Thanks and wishing you all a good day ahead.
PUB also has its own interpretation of flooding too, it is called 'ponding'. LOL
But i believe any intelligent and clear thinking person can tell the difference between truth and spin.
we are here to share our diverse views, sometimes a tat robust for other's liking. I too am guilty of this at times. But saying sorry when none is warranted or called for does cheapen the word sometimes. :)
If landlords collecting rent are leeches, then minority shareholders collecting dividends from the shares that they invested in are also leeches? hehe welcome to the leech club, leech bros and sis. :cheers1:
Investors=leech?
How to become a landlord? firstly u need to buy a property. what are the costs and overheads involved? no value add? Imagine nobody rent out their property? where expats going to stay?
What happens when rental drop and landlord need to top up significant amount of $ to the bank? Can I also say landlords are the slaves to the bank when that happen?
If landlords collecting rent are leeches, then minority shareholders collecting dividends from the shares that they invested in are also leeches? hehe welcome to the leech club, leech bros and sis. :cheers1:
True... Then all passive income earners are leech leecherer leecherest lol
True... Then all passive income earners are leech leechede leecherest lol
how about banks? Are they the greatest leech?
Investors=leech?
How to become a landlord? firstly u need to buy a property. what are the costs and overheads involved? no value add? Imagine nobody rent out their property? where expats going to stay?
What happens when rental drop and landlord need to top up significant amount of $ to the bank? Can I also say landlords are the slaves to the bank when that happen?
Yap... Guess even banks are not the top of the food chain... The gahmen is. No matter how the market turns, banks may cut people and bankers lose job, but with all the CM the gahmen coffers will always be full and topped up...
Time to change the It's a Fine City tourist tshirts to It's a Cool and Measured City
Hi Bros Howgozit and August,
Thanks for replying.
I appreciate the time and effort put in by that those who have been involved in the brief debate. I believe the points that I have put forward quite clearly illustrate my personal interpretation of meritocracy and I am sorry if it does not align with yours.
The idealogy of meritocracy has evolved greatly over the years and it may not be viable to depend on just a dictionary for its exact definition and breadth of scope. If you do a quick check on the various dictionaries available online, you will find various meanings offered. The majority define it as what you and bro August have cited. There is however a handful whose definitions are closer to my interpretations.
Nevertheless, as it would be pointless to launch a debate over which dictionaries are legitimate and which are not, I believe we can leave the discussion as it is and just keep our minds open to possibilities from both ends.
Ultimately, what is important for Singapore as a nation is that the system of governance and policy-making is based on a robust and sound platform with principles grounded in a clearly defined set of idealogies and beliefs. I am not dogmatic about meritocracy, it is only a set of idealogies, no more.
Thanks and wishing you all a good day ahead.
I am with Samsara.
When I was a little boy living in the kampung, I used to see those angmo driving sports car pass our kampung towards the direction of their landed house. I ask my mum, why these angmo so rich? The reply I got was "it's like that lah. They are rich but if you study and work hard, when you grow up you can be as rich as them". This reply from her rings in my ear very often throughout my school days and corporate world. Today I have multiple properties locally and overseas. So I'm a strong believer that meritocracy exists in Singapore and our government has been practicing this all these years.
However, with the CM5 I'm feeling that this Meritocracy practice is starting to change from the pressure of the kpkb group. Needing to pay the ABSD for 3rd properties onwards is discriminating against those who has work hard for decades to reach where they are today.
Imaging one day your child come back home & say
"Papa, my teacher says that from today onwards the top 10% students test result in the class will have to start from -10. Because for the last 2 test, we score >90 and some even score 100. That is ridiculous. So starting from the 3rd test paper, everyone start from a base of zero but the top students start from -10. If you score full 100 marks, after minus 10 you get 90 points.
This is to allow those students with poorer results to catch up with you & don't feel they're left behind. This also give them a fairer starting point given that you guys are too good already. Otherwise they will feel inferior and demoralized which is no good for the harmony and team spirit in the class. Understand? Anyway this decision is final and there shall not be any objection. Understand?"
I may have exaggerated with the above example but this is what it seems to me with the latest CM.
I am with Samsara.
When I was a little boy living in the kampung, I used to see those angmo driving sports car pass our kampung towards the direction of their landed house. I ask my mum, why these angmo so rich? The reply I got was "it's like that lah. They are rich but if you study and work hard, when you grow up you can be as rich as them". This reply from her rings in my ear very often throughout my school days and corporate world. Today I have multiple properties locally and overseas. So I'm a strong believer that meritocracy exists in Singapore and our government has been practicing this all these years.
However, with the CM5 I'm feeling that this Meritocracy practice is starting to change from the pressure of the kpkb group. Needing to pay the ABSD for 3rd properties onwards is discriminating against those who has work hard for decades to reach where they are today.
Imaging one day your child come back home & say
"Papa, my teacher says that from today onwards the top 10% students test result in the class will have to start from -10. Because for the last 2 test, we score >90 and some even score 100. That is ridiculous. So starting from the 3rd test paper, everyone start from a base of zero but the top students start from -10. If you score full 100 marks, after minus 10 you get 90 points.
This is to allow those students with poorer results to catch up with you & don't feel they're left behind. This also give them a fairer starting point given that you guys are too good already. Otherwise they will feel inferior and demoralized which is no good for the harmony and team spirit in the class. Understand? Anyway this decision is final and there shall not be any objection. Understand?"
I may have exaggerated with the above example but this is what it seems to me with the latest CM.
BTW, I've already been doing donations and paying personal income tax, property tax, income tax for many years.
Don't say I didn't pay enough taxes and don't mix up these taxes with the ABSD.
Today I have multiple properties locally and overseas. So I'm a strong believer that meritocracy exists in Singapore and our government has been practicing this all these years.
3% ABSD and Singapore's concept of meritocracy collapses?:doh: Your current wealth of pte properties is a testament to how Singapore concept of meritocracy has succeeded. Draconian CMs has been implemented and taken away in the past, but it has never stop the enterprising and hard working from a shot at the rich pie.;)
Based on similar idea to CM5, to be fair to all, gov should also introduce following:
1) REITs: buy 3rd commercial properties etc must pay 10% ABSD?
2) Cars: A household buy 2nd car must pay 100% additional COE duty? No reason for a household to own 2 cars right? :p
3) Give birth to 3rd kids pay penalty lah! Cause over-crowding in Singapore!
4) Own 2nd phone must pay 100% additional tax lah! Why need to own 2 phone? :beats-me-man:
5) Kids study in international school must pay 100% additional tax similar to school fee to govt. Why must study in international school? Same for independent schools? Because they cause living costs and inflation to increase!
What a joke! :doh:
I am with Samsara.
When I was a little boy living in the kampung, I used to see those angmo driving sports car pass our kampung towards the direction of their landed house. I ask my mum, why these angmo so rich? The reply I got was "it's like that lah. They are rich but if you study and work hard, when you grow up you can be as rich as them". This reply from her rings in my ear very often throughout my school days and corporate world. Today I have multiple properties locally and overseas. So I'm a strong believer that meritocracy exists in Singapore and our government has been practicing this all these years.
However, with the CM5 I'm feeling that this Meritocracy practice is starting to change from the pressure of the kpkb group. Needing to pay the ABSD for 3rd properties onwards is discriminating against those who has work hard for decades to reach where they are today.
Imaging one day your child come back home & say
"Papa, my teacher says that from today onwards the top 10% students test result in the class will have to start from -10. Because for the last 2 test, we score >90 and some even score 100. That is ridiculous. So starting from the 3rd test paper, everyone start from a base of zero but the top students start from -10. If you score full 100 marks, after minus 10 you get 90 points.
This is to allow those students with poorer results to catch up with you & don't feel they're left behind. This also give them a fairer starting point given that you guys are too good already. Otherwise they will feel inferior and demoralized which is no good for the harmony and team spirit in the class. Understand? Anyway this decision is final and there shall not be any objection. Understand?"
I may have exaggerated with the above example but this is what it seems to me with the latest CM.
3% ABSD and Singapore's concept of meritocracy collapses?:doh: Your current wealth of pte properties is a testament to how Singapore concept of meritocracy has succeeded. Draconian CMs has been implemented and taken away in the past, but it has never stop the enterprising and hard working from a shot at the rich pie.;)
Please read carefully. I did not say collapse. :doh:
I am saying there is a change in the practice of meritocracy.
I may have exaggerated with the above example but this is what it seems to me with the latest CM.
Exaggerated much?:doh: Your "story" epitomize the total collapse of meritocracy. What else can be infer from your "exaggerated" story?
I feel that cm5 had change the rules of the game for property investment too drastically.
Private property is no longer 'private'
Looking back from cm1 to 5, there r more measures and changes applied to pte property than hdb flats
It just does not sound logical to me.
More should be applied to hdb rather than pte property. Hdb resale prices had gone up too much within such a short time frame since 2007
Nobody is sure that CM5 will be the last...IF (I say if only if) the price continues to climb,..nobody can say when the CM6 will be coming...:o
Exaggerated much?:doh: Your "story" epitomize the total collapse of meritocracy. What else can be infer from your "exaggerated" story?
Aiyo. It's just an analogy to the CM5 lah. :doh:
I :doh: two times already. My head very painful now.
I am saying there is a change in the practice of meritocracy.
Yes that is what I felt too.
And it seems inevitable by looking at the recent speeches by the various ministers. It's clear the conclusion had been made.
When you see the opposition accusing PAP with "economic growth at the expense of the people", and dangling Bhutan as example of happiness, and are actually getting wide spread supports from it, PAP probably concluded the society now wants "all inclusive" growth. What follows is an easy guess.
Yes that is what I felt too.
And it seems inevitable by looking at the recent speeches by the various ministers. It's clear the conclusion had been made.
When you see the opposition accusing PAP with "economic growth at the expense of the people", and dangling Bhutan as example of happiness, and are actually getting wide spread supports from it, PAP probably concluded the society now wants "all inclusive" growth. What follows is an easy guess.
Whether PAP will gain more votes or even lose more votes remains to be seen in 2016
Interesting perspective.
I see CM from other angles...but you have your own points.
I am with Samsara.
When I was a little boy living in the kampung, I used to see those angmo driving sports car pass our kampung towards the direction of their landed house. I ask my mum, why these angmo so rich? The reply I got was "it's like that lah. They are rich but if you study and work hard, when you grow up you can be as rich as them". This reply from her rings in my ear very often throughout my school days and corporate world. Today I have multiple properties locally and overseas. So I'm a strong believer that meritocracy exists in Singapore and our government has been practicing this all these years.
However, with the CM5 I'm feeling that this Meritocracy practice is starting to change from the pressure of the kpkb group. Needing to pay the ABSD for 3rd properties onwards is discriminating against those who has work hard for decades to reach where they are today.
Imaging one day your child come back home & say
"Papa, my teacher says that from today onwards the top 10% students test result in the class will have to start from -10. Because for the last 2 test, we score >90 and some even score 100. That is ridiculous. So starting from the 3rd test paper, everyone start from a base of zero but the top students start from -10. If you score full 100 marks, after minus 10 you get 90 points.
This is to allow those students with poorer results to catch up with you & don't feel they're left behind. This also give them a fairer starting point given that you guys are too good already. Otherwise they will feel inferior and demoralized which is no good for the harmony and team spirit in the class. Understand? Anyway this decision is final and there shall not be any objection. Understand?"
I may have exaggerated with the above example but this is what it seems to me with the latest CM.
I feel that cm5 had change the rules of the game for property investment too drastically.
Private property is no longer 'private'
Looking back from cm1 to 5, there r more measures and changes applied to pte property than hdb flats
It just does not sound logical to me.
More should be applied to hdb rather than pte property. Hdb resale prices had gone up too much within such a short time frame since 2007
Yes, i have been saying all along they should have considered more measures to HDB right from the start instead of private pty market. Perhaps they are not doing so is bcos they are wary of a backlash at the ballot boxes. As MBT once said "everything has got to do with politics".
but a private ppty investor can also take advantage of this knowing that private will always command a premium over HDB and hence private prices are supported as long as HDB prices remain stable.
however with massive HDB supply coming in the next few yrs, things can get interesting....
to the elite who are top earners for eg earning milions a year(alot of news recently at major newpaper in Sg) is 3% ABSD a major impediment to them if they want to buy 3rd or more property in general? so to these group of elite,is meritocracy still works or are they in different league? :o
Even if meritocracy is gone overnight, it will have little effects on wealth accumulation for the enterprising. Just ask the the "disenfranchise" Chinese in Malaysia and Indonesia. Or ask any PRC how their government lack of meritocracy has curtail their desire and ability to get rich........Where there is a will there is a way.;)
Yes that is what I felt too.
And it seems inevitable by looking at the recent speeches by the various ministers. It's clear the conclusion had been made.
When you see the opposition accusing PAP with "economic growth at the expense of the people", and dangling Bhutan as example of happiness, and are actually getting wide spread supports from it, PAP probably concluded the society now wants "all inclusive" growth. What follows is an easy guess.
may i say that what u are feeling is not a meritocracy issue, rather it is an outcome due to a slight possible economic rebalancing.
u see, beginning with PM GCT, there was a gradual shift in PAP govt's economic policy and ideology towards the right. By the time LHL became PM the govt has embraced full blown what is come to be known as trickle-down economics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics). LHL brought up this term in one of the budget speeches of the mid 2000s so it is not some heresay. coupled with LHL's personal ambition to make spore a financial hub, this means the tax regime are designed to favour the rich e.g. abolishment of estate duty in 2008, one of the lowest corporate tax rate in the world (with shortfall made up by raising the GST, twice.)
after GE2011, there are some early signs that PAP govt may have understood that the thrust to grow GDP at all cost is not sustainable and needs to be moderated. But does this signal a fundamental shift in policy paradigm and thinking? of cos not, so u folks should breathe easy lah. Spore is still the place for capitalists. :)
Even if meritocracy is gone overnight, it will have little effects on wealth accumulation for the enterprising. Just ask the the "disenfranchise" Chinese in Malaysia and Indonesia. Or ask any PRC how their government lack of meritocracy has curtail their desire and ability to get rich........Where there is a will there is a way.;)
Furthermore, maybe those elite with multimillion income/year, even the market soften or worse if it crash, will they be the ones who will be badly affected if they have multiple properties? what are the odds as compared to normal singkies? :o
blackjack21trader
09-01-12, 16:21
Furthermore, maybe those elite with multimillion income/year, even the market soften or worse if it crash, will they be the ones who will be badly affected if they have multiple properties? what are the odds as compared to normal singkies? :o
the more elite, the more painful it will be when the market crash. for example,
before 2008, net worth: 200 million
after 2008, net worth: 20 million
still rich, but that can set the stage for many sleepless nights to come regretting not taking any action before the plunge.
blackjack21trader
09-01-12, 16:25
the more elite, the more painful it will be when the market crash. for example,
before 2008, net worth: 200 million
after 2008, net worth: 20 million
still rich, but that can set the stage for many sleepless nights to come regretting not taking any action before the plunge.
u think i tok cork sing song right?
take this example:
before 2008, share qty 1,000,000. share price US$20. net worth: US$20 million
after 2008, share price US$2, net worth: US$2 million
Now you see the light liao bo ?
Still rich of cause.....but many nights will be spent asking "WHY?"
you are supposed to be able to afford 20 houses. Now become 1 house. Get it ? See the scale and depth of the philosophy behind this example ?
WOAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH
blackjack21trader
09-01-12, 16:30
u think i tok cork sing song right?
take this example:
before 2008, share qty 1,000,000. share price US$20. net worth: US$20 million
after 2008, share price US$2, net worth: US$2 million
Now you see the light liao bo ?
Still rich of cause.....but many nights will be spent asking "WHY?"
you are supposed to be able to afford 20 houses. Now become 1 house. Get it ? See the scale and depth of the philosophy behind this example ?
WOAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH
the best mental torture comes when you decide whether to dispose the share which had dropped from US$20 to US$2 to realise the losses. You can chose not to dispose and wait, but your stomach cannot wait liao la.
WOAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
blackjack21trader
09-01-12, 16:32
the best mental torture comes when you decide whether to dispose the share which had dropped from US$20 to US$2 to realise the losses. You can chose not to dispose and wait, but your stomach cannot wait liao la.
WOAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
then come the next torture after disposing the shares:
the share dropped from US$20 to US$15 - why did not you take any action?
it dropped from US$15 to US$8 - why did not you take any action?
it dropped from US$8 to US$2- now then you are forced to take action ?
WOAHAHAHAHAAHAH
blackjack21trader
09-01-12, 16:35
then come the next torture after disposing the shares:
the share dropped from US$20 to US$15 - why did not you take any action?
it dropped from US$15 to US$8 - why did not you take any action?
it dropped from US$8 to US$2- now then you are forced to take action ?
WOAHAHAHAHAAHAH
of which, 1 year of full consolation as you congratulated yourself because the share dropped from US$2 to US$1. Heng Arh... you said.
then, from US$1 it rocketed to US$10...you did not take any action
it rocketed from US$10 to US$20..you tell yourself it will drop
Then, 3 years later, it is trading now at US$40 !!!!
WAHLAUEH.... now you realise this is GOING TO BE A LIFELONG MENTAL REGRET AND TORTURE !!!!!
This is how they scoop money from the markets. They short and make money on the way down, afterwhich they will go long and make money on the way up.
Where does the money come from? It is donated by the charitable masses. Most people will not be able to stomach the roller coaster ride. The key to survival in the stock market is to have a strong stomach and a gentle disposition (little emotion).
then come the next torture after disposing the shares:
the share dropped from US$20 to US$15 - why did not you take any action?
it dropped from US$15 to US$8 - why did not you take any action?
it dropped from US$8 to US$2- now then you are forced to take action ?
WOAHAHAHAHAAHAH
And may I add.... pockets deep enough to weather the ride
This is how they scoop money from the markets. They short and make money on the way down, afterwhich they will go long and make money on the way up.
Where does the money come from? It is donated by the charitable masses. Most people will not be able to stomach the roller coaster ride. The key to survival in the stock market is to have a strong stomach and a gentle disposition (little emotion).
Actually "ponding" is a legitimate meteorological term to describe the situation.
A flood can result in "ponding" which simply means the pooling of water. Depending on the extent, ponding can be more severe than flooding. That is because the term "ponding" suggests that there is no way for the water to flow out.
However due to strong anti-government sentiments(probably justifiable), the term is viewed as a way to alleviate the severity of the flood situation.
I remember many years ago on radio Joe Augustine made fun of the traffice police who was on Class95 to report "ponding" in several areas in Singapore because of the rain. Because Joe was not acquainted with the term "ponding", he made fun of the poor traffic cop thinking it was a made-up word.
PUB also has its own interpretation of flooding too, it is called 'ponding'. LOL
But i believe any intelligent and clear thinking person can tell the difference between truth and spin.
we are here to share our diverse views, sometimes a tat robust for other's liking. I too am guilty of this at times. But saying sorry when none is warranted or called for does cheapen the word sometimes. :)
Actually "ponding" is a legitimate meteorological term to describe the situation.
A flood can result in "ponding" which simply means the pooling of water. Depending on the extent, ponding can be more severe than flooding. That is because the term "ponding" suggests that there is no way for the water to flow out.
However due to strong anti-government sentiments(probably justifiable), the term is viewed as a way to alleviate the severity of the flood situation.
I remember many years ago on radio Joe Augustine made fun of the traffice police who was on Class95 to report "ponding" in several areas in Singapore because of the rain. Because Joe was not acquainted with the term "ponding", he made fun of the poor traffic cop thinking it was a made-up word.
you may be delighted to know that today in parliament the minister has chided PUB for using the term ponding, hehe. :D
Link here http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_753473.html
may i say that what u are feeling is not a meritocracy issue, rather it is an outcome due to a slight possible economic rebalancing.
u see, beginning with PM GCT, there was a gradual shift in PAP govt's economic policy and ideology towards the right. By the time LHL became PM the govt has embraced ...
after GE2011, there are some early signs that PAP govt may have understood that the thrust to grow GDP at all cost is not sustainable and needs to be moderated. But does this signal a fundamental shift in policy paradigm and thinking? of cos not, so u folks should breathe easy lah. Spore is still the place for capitalists. :)
U know what, let's be positive, and hope what you say here is true. :D
the more elite, the more painful it will be when the market crash. for example,
before 2008, net worth: 200 million
after 2008, net worth: 20 million
still rich, but that can set the stage for many sleepless nights to come regretting not taking any action before the plunge.
the purpose to bring this up is not to dwell into the mentality or psychological condition of the elite if they have misstep in their investment.. i believe this is the stress that will be undergone when investment went awry...be it elite or normal people, leman bro collaspe for eg...
the purpose to bring this up is to have some additional points for consideration into the topic of meritocracy as has been debated fercociously in the thread.. :o such as do the elite thinks meritocracy has not worked for them with the ABSD of 3%? for eg will the elite be easier to ride out the storm as compared to normal singkies as maybe perceived by garmen hence the need to have more CMs to prevent shock? who is running the country elite or ....etc?:o
Relationship of government and its people is like husband and wife.
Husband keeping most of his salary and then make wife work like hell for household chores, i.e. household chores become from 3rm HDB to GCB as husband's income grew but hired maids to look after house and sleeping with them...... while constantly telling wife to improve productivity, i.e. work amicably with the maids, must have harmony while only giving minimal rise in household allowances.
Rich husband (government) owns many multiple properties worldwide but give only 1 house to wife (citizens).
Wife make noise and says, "Anymore workload increase and you not sharing your salary means I'm going to make you a cuckold very soon. This is especially so if you keep sleeping with the maids! (foreigners)"
The husband didn't take his wife's words seriously and went along making more money.
Until one fine day, during a charitable ballroom event, where both husband and wife were invited, wife flirted with her husband's business associates who were at times alliances, and at time adversaries. (The opposition parties).
Husband was jealoused and threatened with passing remarks to wife about her misbehaviour. Wife retorted, "You like your maids so much, then go sleep with them. Don't keep telling me what to do! I will sleep with someone else if you continue to be bossy!"
And so, the wife did sleep with somebody, i.e. An opposition party...... (lost of a GRC). It's quite fortunate that it was only ONE because there were so many other parties at the ballroom event as well.
Husband wondered why and realized that he has lost touch with his wife totally. Husband began making amendments before words spread further about his impotency and philanderous behavior with his maids (foreigners).
After several pro-active measures (cooling measures), the wife was slightly more appeased.....
Having said that, this doesn't mean the Husband will stop his philanderous ways and money making habit.
In summary, it's an illusion now... but well, at least the wife married the right person from the start.... Things would have been worse if wife (citizens) married some other incompetent guy (government).
:D
Lol! Nice illustration... ;)
Allthepies
09-01-12, 20:44
This reminds me of a story I've read recently:
----
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little..
The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that.
Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.
These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.
This is one of the best stories I have read so far! Should let all Singaporeans read it! :cheers4:
what the f***
Relationship of government and its people is like husband and wife.
Husband keeping most of his salary and then make wife work like hell for household chores, i.e. household chores become from 3rm HDB to GCB as husband's income grew but hired maids to look after house and sleeping with them...... while constantly telling wife to improve productivity, i.e. work amicably with the maids, must have harmony while only giving minimal rise in household allowances.
Rich husband (government) owns many multiple properties worldwide but give only 1 house to wife (citizens).
Wife make noise and says, "Anymore workload increase and you not sharing your salary means I'm going to make you a cuckold very soon. This is especially so if you keep sleeping with the maids! (foreigners)"
The husband didn't take his wife's words seriously and went along making more money.
Until one fine day, during a charitable ballroom event, where both husband and wife were invited, wife flirted with her husband's business associates who were at times alliances, and at time adversaries. (The opposition parties).
Husband was jealoused and threatened with passing remarks to wife about her misbehaviour. Wife retorted, "You like your maids so much, then go sleep with them. Don't keep telling me what to do! I will sleep with someone else if you continue to be bossy!"
And so, the wife did sleep with somebody, i.e. An opposition party...... (lost of a GRC). It's quite fortunate that it was only ONE because there were so many other parties at the ballroom event as well.
Husband wondered why and realized that he has lost touch with his wife totally. Husband began making amendments before words spread further about his impotency and philanderous behavior with his maids (foreigners).
After several pro-active measures (cooling measures), the wife was slightly more appeased.....
Having said that, this doesn't mean the Husband will stop his philanderous ways and money making habit.
In summary, it's an illusion now... but well, at least the wife married the right person from the start.... Things would have been worse if wife (citizens) married some other incompetent guy (government).
:D
Haha... Yes, I know about that.
In some industries, they call this "service recovery".
you may be delighted to know that today in parliament the minister has chided PUB for using the term ponding, hehe. :D
Link here http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_753473.html
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.