09 Jan, 08:39PM in sunny Singapore!

$1.9M/ baby: Baby bonus scheme ineffective & expensive?

Subscribe to $1.9M/ baby: Baby bonus scheme ineffective & expensive? 16 posts

Please Login or Signup to reply.
  • bic_cherry's Avatar
    73 posts since Jul '05
    • quote:

      http://forums.delphiforums.com/sammyboymod/messages?msg=92000.12

      .
      So despite spending about $800 000 000 or EIGHT HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS on pro family measures all we get is an extra 419 babies or 1.9 MILLION DOLLARS for an increase of every 1 baby.Damn bloody ridiculous huh....?????????????
      Ok.These are the measures the committee has taken:
      1)$10 000 to $20 000 parenthood tax rebate
      2)working mother's child relief of 5 to 25 % of income.This money will be huge if she is a top earner like those 2 women in the committee Lim Hwee Hua and Amy Khor.Not surprising that they put in measures that will benefit themselves the most.
      3)medisave usage for more birth related matters.
      4)baby bonus of $3000 for 1st child ,$9000 for 2nd child,$18000 for 3rd child,$18000 for 4th child.
      5)3 months paid maternity leave for women
      6)maid levy rebate
      7)top up grant for those who marry after 1st Aug 2004
      CoolInfant care subsidy of $400 per month
      9)grandparent tax relief for working mum of $3000.(Notice the benefits are always for women and women and women.The husbands and single men who could have been encouraged to settle down are completely ignored....what's wrong with all our ministers....??????why so much focus only on our women while our men seem to be completely ignored.It's as though the ministers think that the men don't exist in this country and can be completely ignored....no wonder the ministers fail to increase the birth rate)
      10)a fund to implement family friendly workm practices.

  • Salman's Avatar
    1,721 posts since Sep '05
  • ` ~ `
    Atobe's Avatar
    6,087 posts since Oct '02
    • Originally posted by Salman:
      I think this scheme should be stopped, its too expensive, not worth it.

      Another characteristic "no brainer, one-liner" . . Mr. Green

      Careful where you are heading, as your PAPa will not like it . . Mr. Green

      Edited by Atobe 16 Feb `06, 4:52AM
  • Salman's Avatar
    1,721 posts since Sep '05
  • gerrykoh's Avatar
    2,154 posts since May '04
    • The govt gives tax relief but sch. fees/ university fees & daily expenses keep increasing, in the long run still too expensive to support too many kids.
      I will definately advise my kids not to have more than 2, in fact no need any, if they cannot afford it.

  • ShutterBug's Avatar
    6,078 posts since Feb '04
    • Yes, it's sheer IDIOCY.

      Reduce something, and increase something else at the same time.

      What's the difference? Might as bluddy well DON'T bother!!!

  • ndmmxiaomayi's Avatar
    53,347 posts since Aug '05
    • Originally posted by gerrykoh:
      The govt gives tax relief but sch. fees/ university fees & daily expenses keep increasing, in the long run still too expensive to support too many kids.
      I will definately advise my kids not to have more than 2, in fact no need any, if they cannot afford it.

      Agreed.

  • cooleo's Avatar
    1,759 posts since Dec '02
    • Gahmen is really dumb. Giving handouts when it doesn't solve the problem. The money could be better spent giving out scholarships.

      (WHO'S NEXT TO GIVE OUT MONEY?! Mad )

  • Salman's Avatar
    1,721 posts since Sep '05
  • ndmmxiaomayi's Avatar
    53,347 posts since Aug '05
    • Originally posted by Salman:
      yes indeed, handouts are dumb, lets take it back for goodness sake. Bloody stupid PAP.

      Changing sides? Rolling Eyes

  • ndmmxiaomayi's Avatar
    53,347 posts since Aug '05
    • Originally posted by cooleo:
      Gahmen is really dumb. Giving handouts when it doesn't solve the problem. The money could be better spent giving out scholarships.

      (WHO'S NEXT TO GIVE OUT MONEY?! Mad )

      The worst consequence of giving out scholarships is a talent drain. Considering that Singapore's only resource is human, a talent drain is too heavy a price to pay.

  • LinYu's Avatar
    6,655 posts since Aug '05
    • Face it. people don't give birth coz of the incentive the gahmen give but becoz they want it. Anyway its the people money that they are giving back to the people so that's OK and not giving increament to themselves.

  • Saint Valentine's Avatar
    206 posts since Feb '06
  • Salman's Avatar
    1,721 posts since Sep '05
  • TooFree's Avatar
    2,465 posts since Aug '05
    • Such a scheme although may seem to have failed if statistics figures were relied upon but nonetheless, it is still essential. This is due to the increase in the aging population and the declining of the work forces in the near future if a country is not able to meet its required population quotas for the economic.
      This phenomenon is not new and are mostly seen in developed countries on capital economic.

      Encouragement through monetary incentives I would say could still stay but it could be launch together with a softer approach such as public campaign on the benefits of starting a familiy, which might not works actually, but until better feasible solutions can be come up with I guess. Neutral

  • soloken's Avatar
    460 posts since Jun '05
    • I disagree with the topic starter for condeming this scheme, because it is a very poorly given opinion of his or her.

      Whether it is the 400+ additional babies or not, it will definetely lighten the couple who give birth and it should not be measured in the way he put it.

      Suppose you are pregnant or your wife is pregnant, obviously you want to enjoy the scheme, unless you have no intention at all for having the next generation.

      My comment is that it is a very very short-sighted comment and it only show of an individual narrowlism in throwing out his own personal disgrunt or maybe just trouble-maker.

      We should awaits for today's budget.

Please Login or Signup to reply.