Posts: 2,299
Threads: 27
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation:
41
Actually having the landlease of 99 years is a bit of mistake.
If housing is assumed to be a social need and not to act as an asset, it is possible for the govt to slice the leasehold period.
If housing is to act as a social need for Singapore, I would say it is ok to have 60 years, just that assuming if one lives past the stipulated lease agreement, one can continue "renting" the home from the govt until one passess away.
Posts: 108
Threads: 2
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation:
10
kbl Wrote:i think 60yrs lease coming soon
It's already here, in the HDB resale market. Look at mature estates like Marine Parade.
Problem is, everyone is still paying sky rocket high prices for these 40 years old flats, ignoring the lease.
If BTO HDB's were to introduce 60 years lease at say 2/3 the price, the resale market might just start to re-consider its continued ignorance of the lease.
Posts: 3,474
Threads: 95
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation:
17
Quote:Actually having the landlease of 99 years is a bit of mistake.
If housing is assumed to be a social need and not to act as an asset, it is possible for the govt to slice the leasehold period.
If housing is to act as a social need for Singapore, I would say it is ok to have 60 years, just that assuming if one lives past the stipulated lease agreement, one can continue "renting" the home from the govt until one passess away.
Sorry, i have to disagree because Singapore is a little "RED DOT" not CHINA.
If HDB flat is not an asset but a social need, why do we need NS? It should be both. But the Papys have been making Public Housing as an asset only not only for the people but also more for themselves (Papys reap a lot of money from the people through HDB).
WB:-
1) Rule # 1, do not lose money.
2) Rule # 2, refer to # 1.
3) Not until you can manage your emotions, you can manage your money.
Truism of Investments.
A) Buying a security is buying RISK not Return
B) You can control RISK (to a certain level, hopefully only.) But definitely not the outcome of the Return.
NB:-
My signature is meant for psychoing myself. No offence to anyone. i am trying not to lose money unnecessary anymore.
Posts: 209
Threads: 1
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation:
1
Am sorry but i didnt understand that last one - temperament, can u clarify?
Posts: 3,474
Threads: 95
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation:
17
09-03-2013, 05:58 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-03-2013, 06:04 PM by Temperament.)
Quote: (09-03-2013, 05:19 PM)godjira1 Wrote: Am sorry but i didnt understand that last one - temperament, can u clarify?
http://createwealth8888.blogspot.sg/2013...1523058308
Hope i have satisfied your question.
WB:-
1) Rule # 1, do not lose money.
2) Rule # 2, refer to # 1.
3) Not until you can manage your emotions, you can manage your money.
Truism of Investments.
A) Buying a security is buying RISK not Return
B) You can control RISK (to a certain level, hopefully only.) But definitely not the outcome of the Return.
NB:-
My signature is meant for psychoing myself. No offence to anyone. i am trying not to lose money unnecessary anymore.
Posts: 141
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation:
3
Wondering the 4 years of annual salary referred to, is household income or referring to 1 individual income.
The difference will be great.
失信于民,何以取信于天下...
Posts: 775
Threads: 5
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
16
> Actually having the landlease of 99 years is a bit of mistake.
> If housing is assumed to be a social need and not to act as an asset, it is possible for the govt to slice the leasehold period.
> If housing is to act as a social need for Singapore, I would say it is ok to have 60 years, just that assuming if one lives past the stipulated lease agreement, one
> can continue "renting" the home from the govt until one passess away.
It is hard to make public housing Freehold or 999yr. Because the land is small, and there will not be recycling of land for the younger generations.
The problem is not so much the lease... but the price we paid for the lease for public housing.
Now if they shorten the lease... that's a stupid decision to make, especially when people are ageing... I like to think my kids can live in my flat for at least next 70 years...
Posts: 939
Threads: 1
Joined: Oct 2010
Reputation:
11
I think the ruling govt did not do this because they care for the people. They did this because they did not want to lose further future votes. Also, they might be having a hard time trying to persuade the smarter FT and PRs to convert to citizens. Make HDB cheaper is akin to raiding the reserves according to MBT. The account must balance, money "lost" somewhere must be top up from else where. It could be GST becoming 10%.
Posts: 3,474
Threads: 95
Joined: Jul 2011
Reputation:
17
(09-03-2013, 09:05 PM)Bibi Wrote: I think the ruling govt did not do this because they care for the people. They did this because they did not want to lose further future votes. Also, they might be having a hard time trying to persuade the smarter FT and PRs to convert to citizens. Make HDB cheaper is akin to raiding the reserves according to MBT. The account must balance, money "lost" somewhere must be top up from else where. It could be GST becoming 10%. Ha! Ha!
i think you are right in a way. Even Ah Kows & Ah Lians, Ah Hways, & Ah Bengs, Tangkachis & Ah Nehs , etc.... from Malaysia, China , India & other countries respectively know it's never going to be easy for their children to survive in Singapore in future.
A little RED DOT - there is nothing (countryside) to fall back. Maybe that's why the Elites of the day are squeezing the ordinary citizens as much as possible while the going is good. And then "BYE, BYE".
WB:-
1) Rule # 1, do not lose money.
2) Rule # 2, refer to # 1.
3) Not until you can manage your emotions, you can manage your money.
Truism of Investments.
A) Buying a security is buying RISK not Return
B) You can control RISK (to a certain level, hopefully only.) But definitely not the outcome of the Return.
NB:-
My signature is meant for psychoing myself. No offence to anyone. i am trying not to lose money unnecessary anymore.
Posts: 57
Threads: 1
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation:
0
Be it 5.5 years, 4 years or even 3 years, who know what is the TRUE mean annual household income actually is. You trust the figure they provide? Me not. Besides, the PAPies have a record of giving us $$$ with their right hand and rob us multiples the amount with their left hand.
Reduce price by 30% would probably lower the lease to 60 years. You call it cheaper?
For every move they make, the main objective is always to garner more votes. From RC, GRC to CDC and even setting foot on supposedly non-governmental charities org.
|
Homepage
PR Newswire
