Government, what you really want us to do?

[limlim]

Lilac66:

Nebbermind:

[quote=\"Chenonceau\"]
Clearly... you know nothing about how the female body functions. :roll:

Your COE expired liao?? :scratchhead:

CAn renew you know? :evil:[/quote]or replaced.. :evil: :evil:

[limlim]

Chenonceau:

Lilac66:

CAn renew you know? :evil:

You're female right? Do you know something I dunno? Can renew one meh? How?

if cannot, then outsource lor..

[Lilac66]

limlim:

Chenonceau:

[quote=\"Lilac66\"]
CAn renew you know? :evil:

You're female right? Do you know something I dunno? Can renew one meh? How?

if cannot, then outsource lor..[/quote]
:faint: But if you read Chen's posts, she does not believe in outsourcing leh...

[pirate]

3Boys:

But let me tell you what p..... me off. Whining griping Singaporeans who choose to blame the g'ment for their own inadequacies. You mean, the g'ment needs to 'incentivise' you to have kids?? Gimme a break!

We had children because it pleases us and we did it without counting the costs or expecting any kind of special treatment from the g'ment. No matter what the g'ment can throw at us, it will never ever make up for the sacrifices that had/have to be made. Neither can the g'ment make up for the joy of bearing and raising the brats.

Its become stylish for people to lay the blame of TFR on the g'ment. \"Oh g'ment must do this, do that, or else....\".

Oh puhleez, you having babies on behalf of the g'ment or for yourself?

Ah... 3Boys, 3Boys, 3Boys,

I asked a very simple question. Is it too much to ask for this from the g'ment:

pirate:

(1) Not regard SAHMs as not doing anything economically productive. Bringing up the next generation of citizens is economically productive.

(2) Measure HDB affordability by reference to a household with only ONE income earner. Having both parents work to provide income should be a matter of choice, not necessity. Outsourcing childcare to third parties (and that includes grandparents) should be a matter of choice, not necessity.

Did I ask for anything more? No, I did not. Yet, you have not answered the question. Shall I take it that your answer is, \"Yes, it is too much to ask\"? And shall I take it that all of you who liked it also answer \"yes\"?

Shall I take it then that in your opinions:

(1) It is ok to regard SAHMs to be unproductive members of our society; and
(2) It is ok that outsourcing childcare to third parties becomes a necessity due to HDB pricing?

Please don't change the subject this time.

[ruohoo97]

pirate:

(1) Not regard SAHMs as not doing anything economically productive. Bringing up the next generation of citizens is economically productive.

(1) It is ok to regard SAHMs to be unproductive members of our society; and

Please don't change the subject this time.

A few years back, SAHM was regarded as \"not gainfully employed\",( remembered reading from Forum about a SAHM's encounter with the Govt). But now does it still the same?

Even though the Govn't does recognize the value of SAHM, they will not \"promote\" it as the way to increase our TFR, simply because who are going to pay TAX? Do we know there is only less than 1/3 of whole population paying tax? As much as the Govn't wants more babies, they prefer TAX even more.

[corneyAmber]

fightingmom:

BeContented:

[quote=\"verykiasu2010\"]

3Boys says:
\"But let me tell you what p..... me off. Whining griping Singaporeans who choose to blame the g'ment for their own inadequacies. You mean, the g'ment needs to 'incentivise' you to have kids?? Gimme a break!

We had children because it pleases us and we did it without counting the costs or expecting any kind of special treatment from the g'ment. No matter what the g'ment can throw at us, it will never ever make up for the sacrifices that had/have to be made. Neither can the g'ment make up for the joy of bearing and raising the brats.

Its become stylish for people to lay the blame of TFR on the g'ment. \"Oh g'ment must do this, do that, or else....\".

Oh puhleez, you having babies on behalf of the g'ment or for yourself?\"


*LIKE*

:hi5: Me also *like*.

Me 3 ! *like* *like* *like*

Cannot quote more than ....I insert mine here...
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_jUBxYaDjzk/Tr1LDqUCasI/AAAAAAAAHC8/b6qY09dNM54/s1600/clap-animated-animation-clap-smiley-emoticon-000340-large.gif\">
[/quote]

[3Boys]

pirate:

Ah... 3Boys, 3Boys, 3Boys,

I asked a very simple question. Is it too much to ask for this from the g'ment:

pirate:

(1) Not regard SAHMs as not doing anything economically productive. Bringing up the next generation of citizens is economically productive.

(2) Measure HDB affordability by reference to a household with only ONE income earner. Having both parents work to provide income should be a matter of choice, not necessity. Outsourcing childcare to third parties (and that includes grandparents) should be a matter of choice, not necessity.

Did I ask for anything more? No, I did not. Yet, you have not answered the question. Shall I take it that your answer is, \"Yes, it is too much to ask\"? And shall I take it that all of you who liked it also answer \"yes\"?

Shall I take it then that in your opinions:

(1) It is ok to regard SAHMs to be unproductive members of our society; and
(2) It is ok that outsourcing childcare to third parties becomes a necessity due to HDB pricing?

Please don't change the subject this time.

Give me a specific policy examples, juxtaposed against other countries, that;

1) Singapore g'ment regards SAHMs as economically unproductive, or a specific policy tweak that would then render Singapore SAHMs economically productive, either virtually or in reality.

I recognise that SAHMs are valued contributors to the system, and support whatever SENSIBLE and SUSTAINABLE measures that can be implemented to recognise that fact, WITHOUT busting our tax structure or disadvantaging those in mainstream employment.

2) In what way one can practically reference home affordability to ONE income earner when households are made up of a mix of SINGLE as well as DUAL income households, and when this is a STANDARD metric used worldwide as an index of home affordability, in many countries where it is also possible that many households are SINGLE income.

Further, the INDEX is just as INDEX, it is a GROSS measure of overall housing affordability. Does one have any indication as to whether this is used to set public housing prices? If not, then what's the difference if they use one income earner or household income, if its only use is as a trailing indicator?

They don't say, HDB 4-room flat should be set at 4X of annual income, do they? Not to my knowledge. Income cap for ECs and HDB had stayed flat for donkeys years until recently, despite red-hot property prices and rising incomes. Any change in indexing will merely be cosmetic, in which case you are barking up the wrong tree.

[pirate]

Stop waffling. Just answer yes or no, then we can debate the specifics.

[3Boys]

pirate:

Stop waffling. Just answer yes or no, then we can debate the specifics.

Well, you wrap a couple of points into one line, then expect a simple yes or no? Ain't falling for that, brudder.

Anyway.....

Yes, SAHMs are productive members of society, very much so

No, I don't see that the g'ment considers them to be unproductive

Yes, ideally, childcare should be managed in the home.

No, the housing index issue you mention is wrongful interpretation on your part

Yes, the government can tweak some policies

No, the responsibility lies chiefly with the parents, who shouldn't really be asking for more

Can?

[3Boys]

3Boys:

pirate:

Ah... 3Boys, 3Boys, 3Boys,

I asked a very simple question. Is it too much to ask for this from the g'ment:[quote=\"pirate\"](1) Not regard SAHMs as not doing anything economically productive. Bringing up the next generation of citizens is economically productive.

(2) Measure HDB affordability by reference to a household with only ONE income earner. Having both parents work to provide income should be a matter of choice, not necessity. Outsourcing childcare to third parties (and that includes grandparents) should be a matter of choice, not necessity.

Did I ask for anything more? No, I did not. Yet, you have not answered the question. Shall I take it that your answer is, \"Yes, it is too much to ask\"? And shall I take it that all of you who liked it also answer \"yes\"?

Shall I take it then that in your opinions:

(1) It is ok to regard SAHMs to be unproductive members of our society; and
(2) It is ok that outsourcing childcare to third parties becomes a necessity due to HDB pricing?

Please don't change the subject this time.

Give me a specific policy examples, juxtaposed against other countries, that;

1) Singapore g'ment regards SAHMs as economically unproductive, or a specific policy tweak that would then render Singapore SAHMs economically productive, either virtually or in reality.

I recognise that SAHMs are valued contributors to the system, and support whatever SENSIBLE and SUSTAINABLE measures that can be implemented to recognise that fact, WITHOUT busting our tax structure or disadvantaging those in mainstream employment.

2) In what way one can practically reference home affordability to ONE income earner when households are made up of a mix of SINGLE as well as DUAL income households, and when this is a STANDARD metric used worldwide as an index of home affordability, in many countries where it is also possible that many households are SINGLE income.

Further, the INDEX is just as INDEX, it is a GROSS measure of overall housing affordability. Does one have any indication as to whether this is used to set public housing prices? If not, then what's the difference if they use one income earner or household income, if its only use is as a trailing indicator?

They don't say, HDB 4-room flat should be set at 4X of annual income, do they? Not to my knowledge. Income cap for ECs and HDB had stayed flat for donkeys years until recently, despite red-hot property prices and rising incomes. Any change in indexing will merely be cosmetic, in which case you are barking up the wrong tree.[/quote]Your turn pirate.