Property Views

[3Boys]

What is EQUAL may not necessarily be fair, and what is FAIR may not necessarily be equal.


Equalising taxation across all tax brackets ($2800 per man, woman and child, regardless of income status) may be extremely EQUAL, but would be far from being FAIR.

Opening a ballot to allcomers for popular schools, regardless of place of residence, so that those that live in poorer neighbourhoods are not disadvantaged, may be EQUAL, but probably is not FAIR.

So we have a policy that is aimed at giving first time flat owner a FAIR shake at getting a resale flat without killing themselves financially, but ends up being UNEQUAL in that access is restricted to certain groups.

It is the same across the board on MANY policies, like personal income taxation, access to subsidised healthcare, so I really fail to see why there is hue and cry over a really minor policy in housing.

[toddles]

I think the social inequity hue and cry arises from the fact that both


a) HDB owner who purchases pte ppty to live in and rents out HDB subsequently

b) pte ppty owner who was thus far able to purchase resale HDB, live in it for a while without selling pte ppty, then move back to pte ppty and rent out HDB

can be of equal wealth.

thus why is a) now allowed but not b)?

My short answer is a)'s purchase links to ‘aspirations’ which the govt is wary of tinkering with. whereas b) types are seen as fat cats whom they need not pander to too much.

[verykiasu2010]

one more piece of ballot paper for citizen for p1 registration is fair and square according to distance, as all citizens are treated the same


all earners paying the same rate of tax for the same amount earned is fair and square

even communist regime does not impose equal magnitude of tax payment regardless of income

to require an existing private ppty owner to sell it upon acquiring an HDB is unnecessarily vindictive…this is not pandering to the fat cats…this is penalising fellow citizens who need to downgrade living standard

[toddles]

downgrade living standard but still own/rent out pte ppty still = rich, no?

[3Boys]

verykiasu2010:

one more piece of ballot paper for citizen for p1 registration is fair and square according to distance, as all citizens are treated the same


all earners paying the same rate of tax for the same amount earned is fair and square

even communist regime does not impose equal magnitude of tax payment regardless of income

to require an existing private ppty owner to sell it upon acquiring an HDB is unnecessarily vindictive...this is not pandering to the fat cats.......this is penalising fellow citizens who need to downgrade living standard

Well, you have twisted my examples around. Nonetheless, it illustrates my point despite the perversion; EQUAL does not always mean FAIR. Were you not asking for EQUALITY?

[verykiasu2010]

it is a fallacy that some people think private property means rich people


someone could be staying in an old run-down walk-up apartment handed down from the previous generations (Joo Chiat, Geylang etc), and it is anytime worse than any of those glorious HDB 5 room and executive flats, regularly upgraded with tax payers’ money while the private property could be rotting away without any money to upgrade, possibly on 99-years leasehold with remaining lease of sub 60 years

such private property owners are seeking to upgrade to a HDB property but alas, because of the recent regulations, cannot, unless the private property is sold; while a rich HDB owner is so rich as to drive big Merc and own private property freely… why are citizens treated unfairly and unequally by the power that be ? pandering to the rich private property owner ? look around - not every private property is in Ardmore Park or Nassim Park…twisted logic ? how to twist the logic of people with one-track mind who can’t even see the reverse side of the coin ?

can’t empathize with those private property owner caught in such situation ? PRAY hard you are not the one lor …

[verykiasu2010]

3Boys:

verykiasu2010:

one more piece of ballot paper for citizen for p1 registration is fair and square according to distance, as all citizens are treated the same


all earners paying the same rate of tax for the same amount earned is fair and square

even communist regime does not impose equal magnitude of tax payment regardless of income

to require an existing private ppty owner to sell it upon acquiring an HDB is unnecessarily vindictive...this is not pandering to the fat cats.......this is penalising fellow citizens who need to downgrade living standard

Well, you have twisted my examples around. Nonetheless, it illustrates my point despite the perversion; EQUAL does not always mean FAIR. Were you not asking for EQUALITY?

how to twist your examples of not fair and not equal ? :siao: :siao: :siao:

[limlim]

verykiasu2010:

someone could be staying in an old run-down walk-up apartment handed down from the previous generations (Joo Chiat, Geylang etc), and it is anytime worse than any of those glorious HDB 5 room and executive flats, regularly upgraded with tax payers' money while the private property could be rotting away without any money to upgrade, possibly on 99-years leasehold with remaining lease of sub 60 years

such private property owners are seeking to upgrade to a HDB property but alas, because of the recent regulations, cannot, unless the private property is sold; while a rich HDB owner is so rich as to drive big Merc and own private property freely...

Just sell the private pty lah.. govt never prevented them from being able to owning HDB..

[limlim]

Anyway, I feel that the best policy is HDB flats are meant to fulfill the owner’s housing needs, and nothing else.


Whether it’s HDB -> Private or vice versa… HDB owners should not be owning a private property at the same time… Private pty owners can own as many properties as they like, if they are able to, but none of them should be a HDB flat which is for those who needs it to provide a home and cannot afford anything else.

[Daddy D]

limlim:

verykiasu2010:

someone could be staying in an old run-down walk-up apartment handed down from the previous generations (Joo Chiat, Geylang etc), and it is anytime worse than any of those glorious HDB 5 room and executive flats, regularly upgraded with tax payers' money while the private property could be rotting away without any money to upgrade, possibly on 99-years leasehold with remaining lease of sub 60 years

such private property owners are seeking to upgrade to a HDB property but alas, because of the recent regulations, cannot, unless the private property is sold; while a rich HDB owner is so rich as to drive big Merc and own private property freely...

Just sell the private pty lah.. govt never prevented them from being able to owning HDB..

Everyone just wants the best of both worlds bah...
1 grp owned HDB... can buy PTE...
1 grp owned PTE... but cannot buy HDB
How to please everyone?

Read today's report... if u inherited HDB from your parents later... and u stay in PTE... also have to sell off either one right?