閒話家常2015, 振興HKSAN

It's probably a bit one-sided to claim that such program offers nothing but drawback for a specific demographic group.  Those who won't be getting social pension in the short run should also consider the positive impact or broader economic benefits it will bring to the society, especially for those who had been struggling to earn living wages and are in their later years. 

However, as everything returns to the state of equilibrium in the long run, that is when we need to focus on the real cost and benefit of the program. Even though the underlying principles aim to provide assistance to those in need, such benefit would eventually fade and be offset by other factors such as inflation and other loopholes.

In fact I say so because "全民退保" plans are not sustainable at all. Even Prof. Chow plan initially predicts that the fund will run out at around 2040s ~ 2060s (I forgot the exact date) - when we are going to retire.

This. Give the young people an impression that they will only pay for the old but never receive any payment when they get old.

Even today, countries having such a plan are now troubling with their finances, and have to keep increasing taxes in order to fix this. For the worst case, look at Greece.

---

If I were the government, I would ditch such a plan completely and instead reform the MPF schemes such that it really useful for saving when citizens get old (Reduce commission fee etc), as well as figuring out how to help self-employed people to save for the old too.

I have not seen the comments from Prof. Chow. But I highly doubt the accuracy of the estimate that claims to project the depletion of the fund at exactly x numbers of years later.  While the government often sees variance between the actual and budgeted expenditure in the millions or even billions, it would seem too idealistic to project anything in such long term without having the ability to foresee and account for any “black swan events” that could impact (positively/negatively) the economy along the way. (I am pretty skeptical at those so-called precise long term projections and using them as propaganda)

However, I did see one article that cited from the plan proposal? (諮詢文件).The fund will run into a deficit by 2064 assuming every retiree is compensated equally and if there is no increase in tax of any form. (Again, long term projections like this is just as good as it seems on paper) This would seem somewhat reasonable as such program would require additional funding from realistic and periodic contributions. It would make sense to implement increases in different kinds of tax in order to support the system (scheme) perpetually.  If the plan commences next year, the fund will come from the existing reserve which is largely built by the middle-age to elderly today, not the Millennial, but eventually they will play a pivotal role in contribution into the funds in order to reap the same benefit when they retire.

I would love to agree with your argument on Greece, but while the country spends a great deal of the GDP on pension, the economy wasn’t crippled by this one sole factor. The government has spent and borrowed its way into oblivion had failed to address the high unemployment rate, curtail spending like public sector jobs, national defense, and mounting debts before the problem became too large to tackle.  However, there are countries (such as the Scandinavians and Switzerland) that are able to maintain a healthy economy along with a pension system.  

本篇文章已被 Pearltea 於 Dec 30 2015, 03:36 編輯過

1. 荷捐雜稅
2. 掠奪他國
3. 賣官售爵
4. 借貸度日
5. 出讓資產
6. 加印錢钞

預祝各位新年快樂

此主題已被回收。