VB: If You Don’t Want 6.9m Population, There ill be more poor and old people

[xingguy]

Vivian Balakrishnan: If you don’t want 6.9m population, there will be more poor and old people

 

[Brightkid]

VB will organise another YOG?

Scare scare.

 

[po2wq]

if dey dun raise gst, dey wun b able 2 help ze poor ... n there wil b mor poor pipz ...

 

[iluvgst]

VB is such a pathetic disappointment. Can he explain the economic mechanism of how a population ponzi enriches the lower and middle class ? This ponzi was hatched 10 years ago when LHL took office. The population increased from 4 million to the present number of 5.6m. How has the last 10 years bettered the lives of the lower and middle class? Nothing but Transport woes, cost of living issues, unaffordable property prices.

 

[dredd]

VB will organise another YOG?

Scare scare.

I wouldn't even trust the farker to organise my kid's birthday party... Probably blow my budget by 1000%

 

[laksaboy]

VB is such a pathetic disappointment. Can he explain the economic mechanism of how a population ponzi enriches the lower and middle class ? This ponzi was hatched 10 years ago when LHL took office. The population increased from 4 million to the present number of 5.6m. How has the last 10 years bettered the lives of the lower and middle class? Nothing but Transport woes, cost of living issues, unaffordable property prices.

They still believe in the fairy tale of trickle-down economics i.e Reaganomics or Thatchernomics.

Also, the higher population = more tax revenue = more social spending doesn't make sense, because the PAP govt is already notoriously super stingy on welfare. What's the point of collecting more money if you won't spend it?

Your core support base, the darlings such as Calvin Cheng, won't allow you to do so.

 

[JHolmesJr]

Vivian Balakrishnan: If you don’t want 6.9m population, there will be more poor and old people

And if we do get 6.9 there wont be any poor and old people? Has this doctor found a way to reverse aging?

 

[JHolmesJr]

Vivian Balakrishnan: If you don’t want 6.9m population, there will be more poor and old people

And if we do get 6.9 there wont be any poor and old people? Has this doctor found a way to reverse aging?

 

[laksaboy]

And if we do get 6.9 there wont be any poor and old people? Has this doctor found a way to reverse aging?

They could legalise euthanasia and bring the herd of Pioneers down to a more manageable level.

 

[winnipegjets]

Another peverse and upside down thinking of the PAP.

 

[JohnTan]

69 is one of my favourite positions with my wife. Therefore, I strongly support the 6.9M Population White Paper.

The less important reason is that I am a landlord. So with more foreigners, easier to rent out properties. Maybe I can even squeeze 20 to 30 of those foreign bastards into one little apartment. Think of the amount of rent I can collect!

 

[LEGEND]

As usual, threatening the voters again.

 

[tingtze]

69 is one of my favourite positions with my wife. Therefore, I strongly support the 6.9M Population White Paper.

The less important reason is that I am a landlord. So with more foreigners, easier to rent out properties. Maybe I can even squeeze 20 to 30 of those foreign bastards into one little apartment. Think of the amount of rent I can collect!

That's your answer???? Be a slumlord, and Singapore will be forever a great country......

 

[Microsoft]

if dey dun raise gst, dey wun b able 2 help ze poor ... n there wil b mor poor pipz ...

Even if wat he say ish true...would chiu like to see...

- most walking around are poor but mainly sinkie...or

- most poor walking around are sinkies...with all de rich n fat...ah neh...ah tiong...peenoy ft yelling at sinkie coz there is nothing left xcept cleaner, taxi driver n security guard...oh course fattest among all are pappies n cronies...

nxt ge...sinkie oni 30% of population...fuck em...

cmon jus 1 last time pappies nid to con chiu of ur vote...go pappies go...

 

[JohnTan]

As usual, threatening the voters again.

Other than a small handful of freak results, this strategy works like a charm on a national level every single GE since independence. Social media helps to amplify the threat, and does not dispel its myths as hoped. Ha ha ha!

 

[LEGEND]

Other than a small handful of freak results, this strategy works like a charm on a national level every single GE since independence. Social media helps to amplify the threat, and does not dispel its myths as hoped. Ha ha ha!

It's losing it charm. Tan ah, move with time.

 

[escher]

"If I lose one or more of my Heavyweight Ministars in a freak election, we will be Finished!"

Nobody dare to talk this kind of garang talk anymore?

Is there even one PAP ministar who is not a clown or a flea weight Minister?
The combined efforts of all the PAP ministars cannot match the productivity of a 85 year old collecting cardboard , and thats done only as exercise

Can any of the PAP bastards point out just one heavy weight PAP minister, and what the fuck he had done to claim that title of heavy weight?

Not even one can be named?

Then that fucking statement about Heavyweight ministers just another of the fucking lies PAP have been giving all of us together with their usual lies

KICK OUT ALL THE CORRUPT ROTTEN PAP BASTARDS


The tsunami to cleanse Stinkapore into Singapore is building up
But do not take it easy
Continue your efforts all the way and make it happen

Please be statesmen
Keep your eye on the ball.
The worse enemy of Singaporeans is the corrupt rotten PAPs trying to create their Stinkapore
We are in the battle of our life and your family lifes and for Singapore.
Regardless which party affiliation, WP, SDP, RP, NSP ,SPP or any other party or Independent
Do not run down any oppositions
Keep your eye on the ball
Support ALL OPPOSITIONS
Attack the PAP and only the PAP as they are the rotten bastards
Fight for Singaporeans Singapore


Singaporeans man your battle stations!
Singapore needs you now!

Put your support for Singapore on Facebook
Twitter to your friends
WhatsApp to your friends
Get a tsunami of support for Singapore Singaporeans


OPPOSITIONS ARE THE DIFFERENT FACES OF THE TRUE SINGAPORE
PAP IS THE FACE OF SEPTIC OVERFLOWING TOILET BOWLS AND CORRUPTIONS AND OF STINKAPORE




Cleanse PAP Stinkapore into Singaporeans Singapore.
Vote only opposition
Vote out all the fucking corrupt PAPs


This fight is not just your voting for opposition, any opposition against the PAP
Singaporeans must do much more than just relying on their single vote.
Give them the money to support them in the fight.
Give them your time and energy to support them in the fight
They fight for you Singaporeans
They fight our common enemy
They fight the PAP and cronies, corrupt and rotten to the core, who stole over 180 billions from Singaporeans, and intent on stealing even more from us.


Support Opposition, any Opposition, all Opposition
Regardless if they have primary school, or O levels or A levels or PhD
Regardless if they wear singlets, or tuxedos
Support Opposition, any Opposition, all Opposition
Regardless if they wear slippers, or wear sneakers or shoes
Support Opposition, any Opposition, all Opposition
Even if a rat crawl out of a sewer and stand as Opposition
Even if a cockroach with 6 legs and 2 long feelers at the head become Opposition
They will be much better for Singaporeans than the fucking corrupt perverted PAPs who only think of laughing all the way to their banks and back from the banks
Under the fucking PAP, Singaporeans are the 4th class citizens in their own land stolen from them by PAP
PAPs are the 2nd class citizens with the Lee family as the first class aristocrazies
Fts are taken in as the 3rd class citizens kicking singaporeans into the 4th class and sinkies good only to go head down down and arseholes up high high to be fucked and tiewed by PAPs laughing all the way to their banks.

 

[Hans168]

so be it.......... but you are pushing it too far & has NO balls to listen to us!!!!!!!!!
sure ah neh like you help other ah nehs in Changi Biz Hub!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
why you din bring in kachang putih men??? putu mayam oso can!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[frenchbriefs]

They still believe in the fairy tale of trickle-down economics i.e Reaganomics or Thatchernomics.

Also, the higher population = more tax revenue = more social spending doesn't make sense, because the PAP govt is already notoriously super stingy on welfare. What's the point of collecting more money if you won't spend it?

Your core support base, the darlings such as Calvin Cheng, won't allow you to do so.

Billionaires create jobs or foreigners create more jobs?this guy is confused,u want trash or billionaires?
Btw we already imported 2 million trash,shouldnt there be enough jobs created by now?

 

[yellowarse]

They still believe in the fairy tale of trickle-down economics i.e Reaganomics or Thatchernomics.

Trickle-down is a myth. The latest OECD study demolished it.

---

Revealed: how the wealth gap holds back economic growth

OECD report rejects trickle-down economics, noting ‘sizeable and statistically negative impact’ of income inequality

OECD secretary-general Angel Gurría said that 'addressing high and growing inequality is critical to promote strong and sustained growth'.

Photograph: Eric Piermont/AFP/Getty Images

Larry Elliott, economic editor
Tuesday 9 December 2014 00.02 GMTLast modified on Tuesday 9 December 2014 00.55 GMT

The west’s leading economic thinktank on Tuesday dismissed the concept of trickle-down economics as it found that the UK economy would have been more than 20% bigger had the gap between rich and poor not widened since the 1980s.

Publishing its first clear evidence of the strong link between inequality and growth, the Paris-based Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development proposed higher taxes on the rich and policies aimed at improving the lot of the bottom 40% of the population, identified by Ed Miliband as the “squeezed middle”.

Trickle-down economics was a central policy for Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, with the Conservatives in the UK and the Republicans in the US confident that all groups would benefit from policies designed to weaken trade unions and encourage wealth creation.

The OECD said that the richest 10% of the population now earned 9.5 times the income of the poorest 10%, up from seven times in the 1980s. However, the result had been slower, not faster, growth.

It concluded that “income inequality has a sizeable and statistically negative impact on growth, and that redistributive policies achieving greater equality in disposable income has no adverse growth consequences.

“Moreover, it [the data collected from the thinktank’s 34 rich country members] suggests it is inequality at the bottom of the distribution that hampers growth.”

According to the OECD, rising inequality in the two decades after 1985 shaved nine percentage points off UK growth between 1990 and 2000. The economy expanded by 40% during the 1990s and 2000s but would have grown by almost 50% had inequality not risen. Reducing income inequality in Britain to the level of France would increase growth by nearly 0.3 percentage points over a 25-year period, with a cumulated gain in GDP at the end of the period in excess of 7%.

​

“These findings have relevant implications for policymakers concerned about slow growth and rising inequality,” the paper said.
“On the one hand it points to the importance of carefully assessing the potential consequences of pro-growth policies on inequality: focusing exclusively on growth and assuming that its benefits will automatically trickle down to the different segments of the population may undermine growth in the long run, in as much as inequality actually increases.

“On the other hand, it indicates that policies that help limiting or – ideally – reversing the long-run rise in inequality would not only make societies less unfair, but also richer.”

Rising inequality is estimated to have knocked more than 10 percentage points off growth in Mexico and New Zealand, nearly nine points in the UK, Finland and Norway, and between six and seven points in the United States, Italy and Sweden.

The thinktank said governments should consider rejigging tax systems to make sure wealthier individuals pay their fair share. It suggested higher top rates of income tax, scrapping tax breaks that tend to benefit higher earners and reassessing the role of all forms of taxes on property and wealth.

However, the OECD said, its research showed “it is even more important to focus on inequality at the bottom of the income distribution. Government transfers have an important role to play in guaranteeing that low-income households do not fall further back in the income distribution”.

The authors said: “It is not just poverty (ie the incomes of the lowest 10% of the population) that inhibits growth … policymakers need to be concerned about the bottom 40% more generally – including the vulnerable lower-middle classes at risk of failing to benefit from the recovery and future growth. Anti-poverty programmes will not be enough.”

Angel Gurría, the OECD’s secretary general, said: “This compelling evidence proves that addressing high and growing inequality is critical to promote strong and sustained growth and needs to be at the centre of the policy debate. Countries that promote equal opportunity for all from an early age are those that will grow and prosper.”