No no no. They wrote (explanatory variable) next to Female School Enrollment %. Clearly, once people females are enrolled over 100% it really starts impacting their fertility.

I think the "answer" we take away here is that Singaporeans are multilingual, and the employment stuff is a red herring.

protip: You're Republican (read: allergic to facts)

You don't get to pick policies, you get to pick candidates from a party. The economic track record by party is extremely clear. Democrats are better for the economy. Go read that link. Better numbers for:

Real GDP growth

Job creation rate

unemployment rate

Unemployment rate change

inflation rate

budget deficit

S&P annual returns

Democrats are better for the economy, right? The numbers are very clear, right? Democrats are better, even if you feel like Republicans have better policies, right? Democrats have better outcomes, right?

You sound defensive. If you're not worried about the facts being extremely clear that Democratic presidencies are much better for the economy, if you're not tribal and able to just call it as it is, can you affirm clearly that we should all be voting for Democrats if we're concerned about the economy?

>Stupidity, rank hypocrisy, focusing on woke BS instead of efficiency, productivity, and profitability.

I know facts aren't the kind of thing people with your worldview are super interested in, but just to be overly optimistic about who you are: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/corporate-profits we currently have the greatest corporate profitability ever in the history of the US.

GDP per capita has also been trending upward for a long long long time and is at all time highs: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=US

By the way, America does better economically under Democratic presidencies pretty much as a rule. More job creation, better GDP growth, higher increases in median income, greater improvements in quality of life, stock market returns, deficit reduction, you name it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._economic_performance_under_Democratic_and_Republican_presidents

Democrats invest in America. Republicans have austerity policies that cut investment in growth. By the way, Republican presidents pretty much always usher in a recession, and almost every recession we've had has been ushered in by having a Republican in the white house: https://blog.pimco.com/en/2016/12/are-republican-presidents-ok-with-recessions/

But don't worry. I know. What do facts matter? It feels like Biden is "corrupt" amiright? Hell yeah borther!

>Did you just ignore that the title SPECIFICALLY said INCUMBENT homeowners?

Haha. You're awfully worked up for someone that didn't make it past the reddit post title. Did you notice that the title of the post isn't the title of the paper, by chance? On that note, did you know there is a whole article on another site behind the reddit title?

​

>This is about people who already own a home.

I assure you it's not (exclusively), as it deals with topics like "value-added tax on newly built dwellings"

At any rate, my confused non-reading fellow, my point is that things like FHA loans (unmentioned) and mortgage interest deductions belong in the same bucket. That bucket is, in intention and in de facto consequence, about promoting home ownership. It's not about creating a welfare state for the wealthy as the paper would like to frame them.

>Why should someone who already owns a home get taxpayer subsidies?

It's an incentive to purchase and makes it less difficult to continue owning. Whether tax incentives should be considered subsidies is oddly contentious. IMO it shouldn't be since you're not subsidizing anything by not taking things away. But to answer your question about why home ownership should be incentivized and made easier: it's because home ownership is good for society, and we should want as many people to be able to purchase and keep their homes as possible.

Yep, sure can. Google home mortgage interest deduction. Yes, there is a cap. If you have to ask, you're unlikely to hit it.

I didn't say it should be, I said it is. But also, it's going to be a huge wealth builder for someone, so having that be true for as many people as possible is good thing. We make more and more people, we don't generally make more land, and people need land to live on. Real estate value, on average, will go up based on this principle.

Additionally, real estate value is a store of wealth. It's not just the price going up that makes it a wealth builder, it's that you pay off the mortgage, own it, and it holds value. You can borrow against it's value in troubled times. It's valuable. We want lots of people to be able to access that value.

It's not an opinion that those are qualitatively different sorts of interactions a government is having with persons / entities.

It is my opinion that acknowledging that difference is useful and improves clarity of thinking.

Providing financial support is different from a reduction in tax obligation. The first is welfare, the second is not. Deciding not to take a chicken leg off your dinner plate is different from cooking you chicken for dinner.

The government incentivizes home ownership, making it more affordable to buy and hold onto a home.

​

>It does NOT subsidize shelter for renters. My view. Do both, or do neither.

The point isn't subsidizing shelter, it's incentivizing and enabling home ownership. That's a good thing for everyone, in some respects even the people that don't own experience benefit.

https://www.midcityredevelopment.org/blog/increasing-homeownership-decreases-violent-crime

Does homeownership reduce crime? A radical housing reform in Britain

Closing the Gaps: Building Black Wealth through Homeownership

​

Whether non-owners should get their shelter subsidized is a worthy and important discussion (cliff notes: my answer is yes and there are lots of palatable options to me including UBI). But it's not the same discussion and lumping it in with home ownership is missing the important differences between mere shelter and ownership in people's lives.

Head on over to antiwork and propose a welfare state for homeowners and see if you can feel out whether there are people ignorant enough to feel resentment with this misleading framing.

>It's trying to break through to the privileged elite

Looks like you fell for the bad framing.

https://www.ncsha.org/blog/fha-2020-annual-report-shows-fhas-impact-on-first-time-and-minority-homeownership/

Home ownership rate in the USA, those benefiting from mortgage interest deductions, is about 65%.

Those are your "privileged elite" benefiting from the "welfare" system.

Because we're making new people but not new real estate*.

You should learn the difference between an investor being on the cap table of a company and another company that the investor owns a portion of owning the company in question. They're pretty different ideas.

*Save for a few cute examples like in NYC.

Read the other comments. Might not explain why, but you can see that it does.

EDIT: Hah. Actually, the resentful comments have been deleted after I posted. It's because the framing of the paper casts helping and incentivizing people to become homeowners as welfare making it sound like a wealth giveaway to wealthy people.

Dumb take. It's not a "hidden welfare state". Nothing is "hidden" and it's not "welfare". Countries intentionally incentivize home ownership by doing things like making low-interest no-junk-fees allowed first time homebuyer FHA government-backed loans available, letting you deduct mortgage interest on your taxes, etc. Home ownership is stabilizing for a society and is the #1 wealth generator for families. Making home ownership attractive, worthwhile, and lowering the barrier for entry is the right take. Calling it welfare is just trying to create resentment .

>I think the use of buy isn’t that misleading. He signed a legallybinding contract to buy twitter. When someone wins a bid to purchase ahouse they might tell friends they bought a house today even thoughthere are still details to work out.

They might, and that'd probably be because they're a first-time home buyer who doesn't understand the process. When you submit an offer and it's countersigned, you are under contract, you haven't bought anything. Source: I was a real estate agent for years and I've owned many dozens of units. You brought up other people misdescribing a different purchase process. It doesn't support op's mislabeling.

Musk didn't buy TWTR in April, he offered to buy TWTR for $44 bn.

Musk declared the TWTR deal was on hold and said he was doing it because of spam bots. That's potentially very different from putting it on hold due to spam bots. You're making an unsupportable inference in that statement about Musk's mental state. Your animation strongly motivates a different interpretation for why Musk declared the deal was on hold, so you're sort of working against your point with that wording.