Not really sure if those of you who suggest Mr Tan sell his terrace got read properly or not, but here is the extract of the article.
"But the 50-year-old, who lives in a terrace house, remains unemployed and works as a Grab driver to make ends meet.
He does not qualify for the Self-Employed Person Income Relief Scheme (Sirs) because of the type of home he lives in, said Mr Yip Hong Weng (Yio Chu Kang), who recounted Mr Tan's case in Parliament yesterday."
I highlighted very clearly the key word used. The article did not state Mr Tan owns the terrace or his parents own the terrace or even any of his relatives own the terrace. Mr Tan merely lives in the terrace. You guys who ask Mr Tan to sell the terrace talks as if you know Mr Tan or his parents own the terrace. I wonder, is Mr Tan another Ashley Wu?
Mr Tan was "penalised" from SIRS handouts because he lives in a terrace that may not be his in the first place.
Take a look at GST voucher. At its website says "The permanent GST Voucher scheme was introduced by the Government in Budget 2012 to help lower-income Singaporeans. The GST Voucher is given in three components – Cash, MediSave and U-Save." But if you live in a condo with your parents but jobless or having lower income, will you receive GST vouchers? Fair?
Next point on Mr Tan earns a five figures income... Point taken on this and it is valid. Agreed that he should have some savings to tide him over. But at the same time, I am not sure of his financial obligations. Think about it, if a millionaire falls from grace and lost all his money (for whatever reasons), should the govt help this ex-millionaire?
Back to Mr Tan, one thing we can be sure is that Mr Tan definitely paid more taxes because his income was high. In a way, Mr Tan contributed more to nation building. Now Mr Tan has fallen from grace, shouldn't Mr Tan receive at least "some" help from the scheme?
