4/12/2008
Public Assistance Allowance up
The govt has brought forward the increase in PA allowance for the needy instead of taking the one year to study the implications of such an increase. We must thank Vivian for short cutting the process and give the additional $40 to the poor recipients.
Don't forget the push by Lily Neo for the amount to be raised. Without her, this may not have happened.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
The "doctrine" behind responsible public assistance is that it is supposed to be "uncomfortable" for the recipients.
In that way, there is less danger in the thinking changing into "entitlement" rather than privilege.
Just because one is "poor" or "needy" doesn't automatically give a "right" for one to make a claim on the rightful property of others.
Given the unusual problem that retrenched, out of work citizens faces in a job market that is filled with foreigners, I think countries that have adopted liberal policies towards foreign labour, eg. US, singapore shud have some sorts of comprehensive unemployment benefits to assist the locals. ... make sense?
> shud have some sorts of comprehensive unemployment benefits to assist the locals. ... make sense? <
No, not at all. The question needs to be asked— WHO will pay for these benefits?
Since the unemployed are not producing, it is therefore the PRODUCERS who will have to pay for these benefits.
Meaning, that just because someone is out of a job, that gives him the AUTOMATIC RIGHT to claim from someone else who is working and generating income.
Employers have the right to choose who they employ. Similarly, employees or workers also have the choice to work for whomever they choose.
The ideal amount of "public" assistance is ZERO—i.e., the state should not involve itself on matters of "charity", as this creates MORAL HAZARDS.
The question needs to be asked— WHO will pay for these benefits?
Yes, I see your point.. who benefits from these liberal policies of welcoming unemployed foreigners (lorryloads from subprime USA are expected here) to gain places in the local job market, and in the event of local recession, will for the first time see displaced locals finding their options severely limited in the re-employment market, shud foot the bill.
Can you just bring in unlimited talents and enjoy unlimited earnings and taxes, and boom without contributing something in return, if/when your own are somewhat disadvantaged by these policies in the event of a severe recession?
> Can you just bring in unlimited talents and enjoy unlimited earnings and taxes, and boom without contributing something in return, if/when your own are somewhat disadvantaged by these policies in the event of a severe recession? <
No you can't because your fundamental premises are FLAWED.
All resources are finite therefore there are no such things as:
1) Unlimited talent. The supply of talent is limited. Not every "talented" person thanks S'pore (or any one country) is the "best deal" for him. Being "talented" means that person has many choices open to him. And we know, not everyone will choose S'pore. Some may prefer Canada or Aust or Russia... whatever. Therefore, at all times the supply of talent is LIMITED.
2) You don't "bring" talent.
The "talent" are individuals with individual minds. It is they themselves who make the decision COME TO S'pore, or not.
3) No such thing as "unlimited earnings", for many reasons. Mainly, because there are only 24 hours in a day, and one has to rest and do other things which don't earn any money. Also, one can only be in one place at a time—which severely limits how much you can do.
4) Unlimited taxes: God forbid! (Thankfully, they don't exist—both god and taxes)
5) > and boom without contributing something in return, <
The only way to "boom" is to make sure you have enough customers buying your stuff. It is the CUSTOMER who determines whether you "boom" or not. You needn't "contribute" anything. What you must do is TRADE value-for-value, or you won't make any money. Period.
6) > when your own are somewhat disadvantaged by these policies in the event of a severe recession? <
I am "disadvantaged" in a way by the fact that there are too many people on the road. Why can't they all stay home and not use the roads the same time as me? who do they think they are? This is bloody govt policy to allow EVERYONE to use the road anytime they please! This is very UNFAIR to me!!!
Do you see the ridiculousness of your argument? Govt policy will advantage some and disadvantage others. As mature adults we adjust ourselves and don't expect the world to change just for us.
It is TRUE that the policy of OPEN BORDERS (the free flow of humans) in and out of a country, might see the influx of CHEAP labour, which might displace locals. But it has been found that the number of local jobs lost to cheap foreign labour is SMALL. Also those people who are retrenched have an opportunity to seek out new employment in a fast-growing economy, which is producing wealth for all.
7) > in the event of a severe recession <
How many "severe" recessions have you experienced. Be honest. Severe recessions are RARE in developed capitalist societies.
Almost everyone suffers to some degree during "severe recessions". So why are your subjects so darn special?
In fact why are they so special that the govt has to adjust policy just to suit them, and make it "easy" for them to live, while the rest of humanity struggles?
quite boring leh
the solution is to cull them. those who are unable to make it in paradise, who are old, ignorant, unschooled, poor, sick, it is all their own fault. they only have to blame themselves.
where in the world, in which country, there is no poverty, no people who, for some reasons, within or beyond their control, are in a pathetic state that needs help.
yes, i agree, poor people have no right to demand for handouts. but short of culling them, what can a govt do?
i also agree with vivian, give them something, but don't expect to be feasted in a restaurant.
Yes, give the PRC scholars $500 monthly allowance so that they can feast in restaurant while poor citizens make do with $330. All very well taken care of isn't it?
> yes, i agree, poor people have no right to demand for handouts. but short of culling them, what can a govt do? <
First of all, we don't go culling people, just because they are poor.
The ideal situation is for the govt to do absolutely NOTHING—i.e. have state power strictly limited to police functions—law and order only.
The next ideal situation is to encourage self-reliance, individual enterprise and meritocracy within a capitalist society, as an "antidote" to the "expectation" mindset ("I expect the govt to look after me and solve all problems").
States are masters of compromise as they try to be all things to all people. Therefore a small amount of public assistance as a "token" political move is quite acceptable. This is NOT to benefit those recipients. The benefit is the idea that the govt can say that they can say to any of these "liberal" critics that yes, indeed the govt does "help the poor", in a small way.
"The ideal situation is for the Government to do absolutely nothing"
Then the poor can just starve to death and the Government will be free of them. Great! Now I understand why poor people in a certain Asian country are rioting when food prices rise.
"The next ideal situation is to encourage self-reliance, individual enterprise and meritocracy within a capitalist society"
We have just be told that some handicapped people in prosperous capitalist Singapore are working for just $100 per day. If these people are capable of being self-raliant, I wonder why they need so many charitable organisations in Singapore in the first place. Why do people have to do national service, pay tax and GST on everything they consume and at the end of the day, the Government tells you 'if you cannot survive that is not our business to care'.
$330 is darn too little.
anon 432
> Now I understand why poor people in a certain Asian country are rioting when food prices rise. <
I don't think you do understand. If you EARNESTLY BELIEVE that the needy should be helped, no one is stopping you from helping them. If you are not willing or able to help, what cause have you got to ask someone else to do it for you?
> We have just be told that some handicapped people in prosperous capitalist Singapore are working for just $100 per day. <
"We" don't necessarily have to believe everything we are told.
Anyway, what is wrong with $100 a day, if it is honest work? There are millions of able-bodied people elsewhere who don't even earn that in a month.
It is fortunate that handicapped people live in a prosperous capitalist society. Imagine how they would be if they lived in a fucked-up 3 rd world economic basket case?
> I wonder why they need so many charitable organisations in Singapore in the first place. <
Good question, but at least the majority of them are PRIVATE.
> the Government tells you 'if you cannot survive that is not our business to care'. <
Again, no one asks you to believe anything the govt says. I don't. To me the "default" is that the govt is LYING.
However it is NOT "our" business to care. "Caring" (the verb) is a willful action undertaken voluntarily on the INDIVIDUAL BASIS.
That means, only individuals are capable of doing any "caring". If you care, you go and do whatever you think is necessary. But don't turn it into a "virtue" or think that you are "so special" from lending a helping hand—you're not.
===============
anon 1128
> $330 is darn too little. <
Any amount is an arbitrary (token) amount. To me, if I were on the bones of my arse, I would be grateful for the $330 you so conveniently disparage.
No one is stopping you from donating your own money. If you are not willing to put out your own dough, then I would say it is best to be quiet to save yourself from looking like a fool.
wow. that rambling moron has truly outdone himself this time.
:)
actually it is $100 a month for the handicap workers.
as for those on public assistance, i agree that they should not demand. it is charity given to them. the generosity should come from the givers or the govt.
if they think it is their right to demand for more, then it is not right. but those who can should give sufficiently to help them.
redbean,
Since when has any "generosity" ever come from government?
i will love to run an organisation where i can collect whatever money i want and give whatever i want to whoever i want.
the govt is only a people's representative or a group of people claiming the right to rule over the sheeples.
Post a Comment