CEBU-WIDE ECOZONE: What do you think?

[RMK711]

---

tell that to millions of people who are jobless, some of them also don't qualify even for a gasoline boy..and don't directly compare us also in HK and SG, 'coz as what you said, they are highly develop countries, and we are not..

Man, I wish we could help all these people. But let's just say that some of them are that way because they made some bad decisions. You can't help everybody. The point of ecozone is not to provide employment to everyone, but to get jobs to people who 1) really want one and 2) are willing to work hard to get it. The focus should be to get as many people into high paying jobs as possible, not to give one to every single one of those millions of jobless people. They can't even do that in developed countries when they undergo recession.

It's a sad reality that sometimes certain jobless people have to remain jobless for the time being, that doesn't mean we don't try to improve the economy in whatever way we can.

To me it just seems like your saying we shouldn't implement ecozone because you are worried that while people who are employed will get richer, those who are jobless and unemployable will be left behind. Come on man, that's classic crab mentality. So we're to hold everyone back and keep everyone poor just so the jobless people won't feel to bad about themselves?

[masakiton]

I don't see any evidence that fewer people will be able to afford a house if we became like SG. Yes, homes will be more expensive but salaries will increase too. How many pinoys now can afford a house? not counting squatters...

note: sa singapore naa subsidy ang government sa ila housing ug ang CPF contribution (25% sa salary for locals) derecho na deduct.....

ang CPF sa mga singaporean ang isa ka rason ngano dili kaayo sila mag lisod kung mo palit ug flat

kung ma himo na ug RA ning house bill ...
kung mo saka ang average salary ug 10%. kung 15k pesos ato basihan + 10% = 16.5k(1500 increase)
kung mo saka ang property prices ug 5%. kung 1m pesos ato basihan + 5% = 1.05m(50k increase)

[RMK711]

You can't compare them that way, because the salary increase stretches for several years.. that is.. say salary increases 10% PER YEAR, and property prices double in 10 years, you would still be ahead. Salary is an annuity it occurs annually whereas the purchase of a house is a one time expense usually covered by a mortgage. It is the base interest rate and price increase of property that is weighed against the annual salary which, we can assume, increases yearly.

If you do the math by compounding annual salary increases, if the average salary increases an average of 10% annually, and property prices increase 5% annually as well, then eventually the sum total of your annuities will quickly impasse the cost of the property. Do note, when you purchase property on the back of a mortage, the price you paid is practically fixed at the time you buy the property. That is, the bank lends you money, and it is used to pay for the house at the current cost at that time. Hence, the price for you is frozen already, it will not increase 5% annually, what increases 5% annually is the value of the property which is a benefit to you since you already own it, and a liability only for other who may want to buy the property from you. What you will get charged however, is interest rate. And this is where bank interest rates matter, but that already occurs regardless and is a separate matter altogether.

So in summary: Your understanding of finance is weak and your analysis is plain wrong. 1) Because you are assuming that the buyer of a house, who almost always takes a mortgage/loan from either Pag-Ibig or the bank, will have to pay for the increase in property values when in fact the price is frozen at the time the mortgage is obtained hence there is no such thing as 5% increase in property annually for the buyer, only for those who do not take a mortgage and do not obtain property, 2) Because you treated the salary which is paid monthly and increases annually, as a fixed sum when it is in fact an income stream that stretches for as long as a person lives.

[masakiton]

repost sa mga naka limot sa gi istoryahan

will be able to afford a house if we became like SG.

kung ma himo na ug RA ning house bill ...
kung mo saka ang average salary ug 10%. kung 15k pesos ato basihan + 10% = 16.5k(1500 increase)
kung mo saka ang property prices ug 5%. kung 1m pesos ato basihan + 5% = 1.05m(50k increase)

Your understanding of finance is weak and your analysis is plain wrong.

Ok sir.. with your strong understanding of finance and correct analysis in planning please enlighten me sa mga increase kung ma himo na ug RA ang bill...
pila kaha ang expected rate sa increase sa sweldo?
pila pud kaha ang exptected rate sa increase sa real estate?

Yes, homes will be more expensive but salaries will increase too.

with your strong understanding in finance and correct analysis... ngano naka ingon man ka nga maka afford na dayon ang mga taw ug houses once ma RA naning Bill?

[RMK711]

repost sa mga naka limot sa gi istoryahan



kung ma himo na ug RA ning house bill ...
kung mo saka ang average salary ug 10%. kung 15k pesos ato basihan + 10% = 16.5k(1500 increase)
kung mo saka ang property prices ug 5%. kung 1m pesos ato basihan + 5% = 1.05m(50k increase)

Already addressed this. If it was too complicated for you, then I'm sorry that it can't be dumbed down further. =P

Ok sir.. with your strong understanding of finance and correct analysis in planning please enlighten me sa mga increase kung ma himo na ug RA ang bill...
pila kaha ang expected rate sa increase sa sweldo?
pila pud kaha ang exptected rate sa increase sa real estate?

Ah, so in your mind a strong understanding of finance and "correct analysis in planning" (what does this mean exactly, that's the first time I encountered that phrase.. is "correct analysis in planning" a job description, and if so, for what job?) means that one is a fortune teller?

with your strong understanding in finance and correct analysis... ngano naka ingon man ka nga maka afford na dayon ang mga taw ug houses once ma RA naning Bill?

Never made this claim (maka afford na dayon) so not gonna answer this.

Any other questions?

[masakiton]

Never made this claim (maka afford na dayon) so not gonna answer this.

I don't see any evidence that fewer people will be able to afford a house

[RMK711]

That's funny especially when the two quotes are not claiming the same thing.

Simple english raman na maam uy.. mauwaw man sad ko para nimo hahaha

[masakiton]

Never made this claim (maka afford na dayon) so not gonna answer this.

I don't see any evidence that fewer people will be able to afford a house

That's funny especially when the two quotes are not claiming the same thing.
Simple english raman na maam uy.. mauwaw man sad ko para nimo hahaha

ahhhh okies.. so unsa man diay pasabot nimo sir? kung RA nani nga bill puhon...maski naa ta trabaho.. lisod gihapon ta mag ka balay?

[RMK711]

ahhhh okies.. so unsa man diay pasabot nimo sir? kung RA nani nga bill puhon...maski naa ta trabaho.. lisod gihapon ta mag ka balay?

maam kasabot ka sa termino nga gigamit nimo.. ingon ka "maka afford na dayon" doesn't that mean "I can afford right away, as in instantly" sorry ha kung sayop akong translation.. pero wurag sakto man na. Ni ingon ka nga niingon ko "maka afford na dayon" inya imong ebidensya kay niingon ko "I see no evidence nga fewer people can afford.

Is it not correct nga ang statement "maka afford na dayon" is not equivalent to "I see no evidence nga fewer people can afford." As I said maam, you need to know what you are talking about before talking. Niclaim man kaha ka (aw si Tommy Osmena diay) nga mas dili maka afford ang mga tao kung mapasa ang bill.. so asa man imong proof? Katong mga calculation 2x nimo? Hahaha...

[masakiton]

maam kasabot ka sa termino nga gigamit nimo.. ingon ka "maka afford na dayon" doesn't that mean "I can afford right away, as in instantly" sorry ha kung sayop akong translation.. pero wurag sakto man na. Ni ingon ka nga niingon ko "maka afford na dayon" inya imong ebidensya kay niingon ko "I see no evidence nga fewer people can afford.

Is it not correct nga ang statement "maka afford na dayon" is not equivalent to "I see no evidence nga fewer people can afford." As I said maam, you need to know what you are talking about before talking. Niclaim man kaha ka (aw si Tommy Osmena diay) nga mas dili maka afford ang mga tao kung mapasa ang bill.. so asa man imong proof? Katong mga calculation 2x nimo? Hahaha...

oki.. so kung ma himo na ug RA ning bill...naa ta trabaho ... then dili lang gihapon ta maka afford ug house and lot... ngano ato a mani suporta an?