KNN depends on whether got advise or advice properly. KNN
no it isn't. the gold standard of ownership is not necessarily well-defined in any body of work and is fluid across different areas where the term is exercised. For example ownership of a stock with a dividend only implies ownership because of the benefit that arises from said ownership. Long story short : getting to keep a yield is not ownership. it is a benefit of ownership. How you determine ownership of the stock is whether you can change it's status autonomously and without interference.
arigato.Exactamondo! You are a learned man, much respect.
I humbly accept your opinions. All I can say is I try to learn all the time and the more I learn, the more I realize I need to learn.
If you think about it, most sinkies don't own anything. Big ticket items like home and car, you only pay for the privilege to use them. Freehold property? They can chase you off it too if they want to, and compensate you. But the compensation will be insufficient to purchase a similar home.
exactly my bro. ownership of cars in singapore is a very, very good example of the nature of true ownership vs the leaseholding nature of ownership in the singapore paradigm. the assigned value at the end of a car's life in singapore is already pre-determined by the time you buy and "own" the car. The way the COE and the 10 year PARF rules work is designed to maximum government revenue from ownership of the car while ensuring that you WILL NOT ever truly own the car. Buy a car anywhere else and you can still own it until it becomes a rustbucket. It's still yours. In Singapore, you get to keep paying for the right to own the rustbucket.
yes. absolutely correct. there is no such thing as absolute control. But there is such a thing as a relative degree of control which allows one enough autonomy to control the status of that asset. Please see my car example above.
and what happens if your house doesn't generate income? does it then cease to be your house? does it become somebody else's?
yes. absolutely correct. there is no such thing as absolute control. But there is such a thing as a relative degree of control which allows one enough autonomy to control the status of that asset. Please see my car example above.
there are other forms of control that reduce your rights as an owner including the one you stated above. but in NZ's case, fundamental ownership of the home remains yours. All they have done is to restrict your ability to sell to an open market by controlling the supply. They have NOT changed your ownership status. They have restricted the demand and potential buyers that may access your home should you choose to re-sell it. You can try and sue NZ govt for impairing the value of your home, but it's still yours to live in long after you dead.
TBH, I am not the most famililar with CPF controls other than what I glean from here, but it appears that those restrictions remove the right to changing the status. i.e. withdrawing or depositing or whatever you can do to the CPF and therefore remove true, independent ownership from the holder of said monies and places ownership of it within the demesne of the ruling body governing the CPF. The fact that it yields a rate of return is not necessary to determine ownership. It can be a feature of ownership or a benefit of ownership. you can not own an asset and still generate a return or yield that is still yours to keep.
and what happens if your house doesn't generate income? does it then cease to be your house? does it become somebody else's?
while useful in itself and definitely a very important reason (some would say the only reason) to own an asset is the return and yield it generates. it does not mean anything when it comes to determining ownership. it is a benefit of ownership.
you are right here.
Indeed bro. In a nutshell, we know we got a raw deal. Add to that fact we are paying for the most expensive government in the world. It is all up to sinkies to muster the courage to fix it, when the time comes.yes. absolutely correct. there is no such thing as absolute control. But there is such a thing as a relative degree of control which allows one enough autonomy to control the status of that asset. Please see my car example above.
there are other forms of control that reduce your rights as an owner including the one you stated above. but in NZ's case, fundamental ownership of the home remains yours. All they have done is to restrict your ability to sell to an open market by controlling the supply. They have NOT changed your ownership status. They have restricted the demand and potential buyers that may access your home should you choose to re-sell it. You can try and sue NZ govt for impairing the value of your home, but it's still yours to live in long after you dead.
TBH, I am not the most famililar with CPF controls other than what I glean from here, but it appears that those restrictions remove the right to changing the status. i.e. withdrawing or depositing or whatever you can do to the CPF and therefore remove true, independent ownership from the holder of said monies and places ownership of it within the demesne of the ruling body governing the CPF. The fact that it yields a rate of return is not necessary to determine ownership. It can be a feature of ownership or a benefit of ownership. you can not own an asset and still generate a return or yield that is still yours to keep.
and what happens if your house doesn't generate income? does it then cease to be your house? does it become somebody else's?
while useful in itself and definitely a very important reason (some would say the only reason) to own an asset is the return and yield it generates. it does not mean anything when it comes to determining ownership. it is a benefit of ownership.
paiseh bro.Indeed bro. In a nutshell, we know we got a raw deal. Add to that fact we are paying for the most expensive government in the world. It is all up to sinkies to muster the courage to fix it, when the time comes.
not trying to be kuailan, but....
I was referring to the now and present. We started off on the right note after independence, hence our reverence for the old guards. Somewhere along, everything got hijacked, and started going south. It's up to sinkies to bring us back on track.paiseh bro.
I actually think Harry's deal was a pretty good compared to others, but a severely self-limiting one. i.e. it was good for as far as he could envision it, but that was only to get sinkieland out of the gutter post WW2. I don't think he had a good idea for after that, but I don't blame him. We could have gotten a lot worse deal like our neighbours.
Where the deal started to really stink was when ol' Harry died.
I agree...I was referring to the now and present. We started off on the right note after independence, hence our reverence for the old guards. Somewhere along, everything got hijacked, and started going south. It's up to sinkies to bring us back on track.
Wow, new word learned today! primogenitureI agree...
and I blame primogeniture
majulah singapura.
i like milo, but it makes me sick...
