溫哥華老友記討論區 - Powered by Discuz! Board

標題: 六分之一美國人都是窮人 [打印本頁]

作者: soli 時間: 2009-10-21 16:14 標題: 六分之一美國人都是窮人

六分之一美國人都是窮人貧困程度遠超想象
[來源:加拿大都市網綜合]
http://www.dushi.ca/news/bencand ... fid=11&id=12388

　　國際在線消息，最新調查顯示，世界上最富裕的國家美國也有窮人！美國一些居民的貧困程度遠遠超出世人的想象。2008年美國貧困人口高達4740萬，比美國人口調查局公布的數據多出了700萬。可以說，美國六分之一的人都是窮人。

　　《紐約每日新聞》20日披露，這項最新的調查結果是由美國國家科學院發布的。由于和人口調查局的統計規則有所差别，兩個機構公布的數據便相差了十萬八千裏。國家科學院的統計結果顯示，2008年美國貧困人口占總人口的15.8%。這也就意味着，在美國，大約每6個人中就有一個是窮人。人口調查局 9月份公布的數據是，貧困人口占總人口的13.2%，即3980萬人是窮人。

　　據悉，人口調查局的統計标準沒有考慮醫療、運輸、兒童看護或者地理變更所增加的生活成本這一重要因素，在計算收入時沒有将非現金形式的政府救濟排除在外。此外，人口調查局的統計忽略了65歲以上的老年人群。

　　美國以1.1萬美元爲個人最低年收入标準，低于這一收入标準的即屬于貧困人群。以家庭爲單位計算，四口之家的家庭年收入最低标準爲2.2萬美元，低于這個标準的屬于貧困家庭。(李傑)

作者: soli 時間: 2009-10-21 16:25

2.2萬美金一年﹐四個人用每人每月$458, 即係唔夠3600港幣﹐仲低過香港既標準!

作者: PSP550 時間: 2009-10-21 17:08

提示: 作者被禁止或刪除內容自動屏蔽

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2009-10-21 17:49

2.2萬美金一年﹐四個人用每人每月$458, 即係唔夠3600港幣﹐仲低過香港既標準!
soli 發表於 2009-10-22 08:25

四個人用每人每月$458, 即係唔夠3600港幣, 咁4個人加埋就有成14000蚊港幣woh!!!!
小弟未出身之前既屋企窮佢好多啦!...

作者: kipposhi 時間: 2009-10-21 17:52

四個人用每人每月$458, 即係唔夠3600港幣, 咁4個人加埋就有成14000蚊港幣woh!!!!
小弟未出身之前既屋企窮佢好多啦!...
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2009-10-21 17:49

but you didn't count the inflation in.

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2009-10-21 20:39

what about Canada? I like to see Canadian's figures too... 四個人有一個係窮人﹖

作者: Lik 時間: 2009-10-21 21:18

本帖最後由 Lik 於 2009-10-21 21:25 編輯

2.2萬美金一年﹐四個人用每人每月$458, 即係唔夠3600港幣﹐仲低過香港既標準!
soli 發表於 2009-10-21 16:25

多狗餘:

http://inews.mingpao.com/htm/inews/20091022/gb41012a.htm

香港貧富懸殊全球最嚴重 (10:11)

美國《商業周刊》引述聯合國開發組織的報告稱，本港在已發展經濟體系中，反映貧富差距的堅尼系數最高。

報道指出，香港的堅尼系數達到43.4，排第2位的新加坡為42.5，美國排第3。堅尼指數是用來量度社會貧富差距，0為絕對公平，100則為絕對貧富懸殊。

報告指出，由於本港擁有擁有大量富豪，但工人沒有最低工底保障，令貧富差距拉闊。報告亦稱，本港逾半人口居住在貧窮的公共屋鸷。

而根據美國福布斯雜誌的調查，本港有19名億萬美元富豪，而新加坡則只有2名。

根據有關報告，以色列的堅尼系數是全球第4高，第5位為葡萄牙，第6為新西蘭，第7為意大利及英國，第9為澳洲，第10則分別是愛爾蘭及希臘。

而且唔好忘記，依家 Obama 就極力搞緊醫療改革，目的係為咗更多貧窮嘅美國人可以得到醫療保障。

但燈膽權呢？強績金同之前想推嘅強醫金其實都係搵笨，只係變相益晒啲基金，但數就要香港人咩。

-力

作者: rainbow-davie 時間: 2009-10-21 21:19

even the poor ppl in US still richer than most of the ppl in the world.

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2009-10-21 21:28

香港貧富差距大﹐唔奇丫。。。D 錢係晒小部份人手中﹐大部份人都只是捱騾仔

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2009-10-21 22:07

but you didn't count the inflation in.
kipposhi 發表於 2009-10-22 09:52

斷估過去15年既inflation 都冇300% 卦...

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2009-10-21 22:14

報告指出，由於本港擁有擁有大量富豪，但工人沒有最低工底保障，令貧富差距拉闊。報告亦稱，本港逾半人口居住在貧窮的公共屋鸷。
Lik 發表於 2009-10-22 13:18

雖然小弟o係公共屋村長大, 但我自己絕對唔覺得自己好窮~
係, 無可否認, 物質上的而且確唔係好充裕, 但我活得好開心. 我完全唔覺得住公屋係一件好淒涼既事!
回想起20年前, 小弟由一間1xx呎既公屋, 搬去一間3xx呎既公屋既時候都不知幾咁開心~

公屋, 比左一個安落窩比我一家人, 我要多謝香港政府(包括未回歸前既政府)至真! 知足者, 常樂也~

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2009-10-21 22:18

但燈膽權呢？強績金同之前想推嘅強醫金其實都係搵笨，只係變相益晒啲基金，但數就要香港人咩。
Lik 發表於 2009-10-22 13:18

話時話, 其實香港人都真係好鍾意投資唔同類型既基金...
小弟對醫療制度真係冇乜研究, 究竟強醫金同外國既醫療制度有乜分別?
小弟只知道, 個幾月前我同太太係用左港幣$250 就生左個bb了, 都算係超平喇卦... (賺番d 之前交既稅, 呵呵)

作者: maldini 時間: 2009-10-21 22:40

本帖最後由 maldini 於 2009-10-21 23:56 編輯

where in Hong Kong do you stay?

作者: 快樂牛郎 時間: 2009-10-21 22:55

但燈膽權呢？強績金同之前想推嘅強醫金其實都係搵笨，只係變相益晒啲基金，但數就要香港人咩。
Lik 發表於 2009/10/21 21:18

How is that different from 401(k) and HSA

作者: peter236 時間: 2009-10-21 23:02

多狗餘:

http://inews.mingpao.com/htm/inews/20091022/gb41012a.htm

而且唔好忘記，依家 Obama 就極力搞緊醫療改革，目的係為咗更多貧窮嘅美國人可以得到醫療保障。

但燈膽權呢？強績金同之前想推嘅強醫金其實 ...
Lik 發表於 2009-10-21 22:18

Lik, you exposed your ignorance again. The US is now bankrupt with tens of trillions $US of debt. The US consumers and the US banks are bankrupt. Whatever obama wants to do, he either needs to print money or borrow more money from China.

Hong Kong has a low tax rate, and big money reserves. It can still provide reasonably low cost healthcare and education to its people.

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2009-10-21 23:08

Lik, you exposed your ignorance again. The US is now bankrupt with tens of trillions $US of debt. The US consumers and the US banks are bankrupt. Whatever obama wants to do, he either needs to print money or borrow more money from China.
peter236 發表於 2009-10-22 15:02

Peter, 其實小弟好羨慕佢地可以印銀紙, 而又冇人敢噪佢...
你諗下, 如果你屋企有部印銀紙機, 你一洗哂d 錢就印過d 新銀紙, 而d 新銀紙又要係真係值錢架woh, 你話幾咁好呢~

作者: peter236 時間: 2009-10-21 23:12

Peter, 其實小弟好羨慕佢地可以印銀紙, 而又冇人敢噪佢...
你諗下, 如果你屋企有部印銀紙機, 你一洗哂d 錢就印過d 新銀紙, 而d 新銀紙又要係真係值錢架woh, 你話幾咁好呢~ ...
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2009-10-22 00:08

The Americans can print all the money they want. But the $US will go down in value and inflation will go up.

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2009-10-21 23:16

The Americans can print all the money they want. But the $US will go down in value and inflation will go up.
peter236 發表於 2009-10-22 15:12

暫時唔覺woh~
小弟只見佢地印銀紙印得好開心!
唔知我地偉大既祖國幾時先有呢個咁既privilege(印銀紙唔駛本)呢?

作者: peter236 時間: 2009-10-21 23:23

暫時唔覺woh~
小弟只見佢地印銀紙印得好開心!
唔知我地偉大既祖國幾時先有呢個咁既privilege(印銀紙唔駛本)呢?
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2009-10-22 00:16

Just look at the $US vs $Canadian or the Euro. The $US has already gone down a lot in value.

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2009-10-21 23:29

Just look at the $US vs $Canadian or the Euro. The $US has already gone down a lot in value.
peter236 發表於 2009-10-22 15:23

都係金融海嘯之前發生既事啦~
小弟覺得應該唔關印銀紙事woh.

美金係咁跌, 我銀包入面d 港紙都不斷貶值中. 不如比d 過你駛下啦~

作者: Lik 時間: 2009-10-21 23:32

How is that different from 401(k) and HSA
快樂牛郎發表於 2009-10-21 22:55

Biggest difference is, compared to HK, US has a much higher tax rate, and both 401k and HSA are registered tax shelters, thereby providing both instant and longer term financial incentives to the plan contributer. Furthermore, Americans can choose to opt out of either plan if they wish.

I'm not 100% certain on this, but I think in Hong Kong, both 強績金 and the proposed (but failed) 強醫金 are mandatory. Furthermore, since most people do not end up paying any income tax anyway, 強績金 and 強醫金 don't offer any tax incentives to the contributor. In fact, by taking the money away from the worker now, the funds are actually hurting the current financial status of the worker.

For 強績金, I think the sum of money is either inaccessible until the contributor turns 65, or extremely difficult to dip your hands into. With 401k, I think you just pay for the tax penalty if you want to retrieve the $$. (But I am not 100% certain on this.) Withdrawing funds form HSA for medical purposes does not incur any penalty. I don't remember the accessibility rules for the 強醫金 proposal, but I think the funds are inaccessible until 65 as well.

At any rate, the biggest differences are the tax shelter incentive and the optional aspect of the plan.

-Lik

作者: peter236 時間: 2009-10-21 23:32

都係金融海嘯之前發生既事啦~
小弟覺得應該唔關印銀紙事woh.

美金係咁跌, 我銀包入面d 港紙都不斷貶值中. 不如比d 過你駛下啦~
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2009-10-22 00:29

It is happening right now.

作者: peter236 時間: 2009-10-21 23:35

本帖最後由 peter236 於 2009-10-22 00:53 編輯

Biggest difference is, compared to HK, US has a much higher tax rate, and both 401k and HSA are registered tax shelters, thereby providing both instant and longer term financial incentives to the pla ...
Lik 發表於 2009-10-22 00:32

Your campbell soup government is going to squeeze you dry with the HST. If the US/Canada want to provide a tax shelter, why don't they just reduce the tax rates now, instead of implementing high tax rates and then give you a little tax shelter? The complicated tax system here is very inefficient. Here you still have the CPP.

Hong Kong's system is actually very good for the long term planning of the retirement of the aging population. It is good for people who work for small companies that do not have company sponsored pension schemes. It is also tax deductible, unlike what you claimed.

Please see:
http://www.mpfa.org.hk/english/abt_mpfs/abt_mpfs_fms/abt_mpfs_fms_tc/abt_mpfs_fms_tc.html

作者: Lik 時間: 2009-10-22 00:03

I am not even gonna bother replying to idiotic posts. Think a little before you spew your crap la.

-Lik

作者: peter236 時間: 2009-10-22 00:12

I am not even gonna bother replying to idiotic posts. Think a little before you spew your crap la.

-Lik
Lik 發表於 2009-10-22 01:03

Know-it-all Lik, it is you who was spewing crap again, and of course, got embarrassed again, by your own Hong Kong bashing.

作者: Lik 時間: 2009-10-22 00:17

How is that different from 401(k) and HSA
快樂牛郎發表於 2009-10-21 22:55

I should add that from an employee's perspective, 401k's are generally inferior to a defined pension plan. Studies have shown that for most recent-ish retirees (those retired in the last 10 years), they will almost always be better off (receive higher payment amounts) in their retirement if they a defined pension plan instead of a mere 401k.

Of course, to the employer, proper pension plans are a lot more expensive than 401k's. So in the interest of their balance sheets, 401k's are a lot more attractive than pensions.

-Lik

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2009-10-22 00:19

力兄, 小弟覺得近排Peter 仔既討論已經比以前理性左好多, 絕對係一個進步! 就好似見到中國改革開放成功一樣!

希望Peter 仔再會進步多d, 不過呢d 都係慢慢黎唔急得, 就好似中國既民主步伐一樣, 都要從序漸進啦~ 唔知LYK有冇咁長命呢?

作者: 快樂牛郎 時間: 2009-10-22 00:25

I should add that from an employee's perspective, 401k's are generally inferior to a defined pension plan. Studies have shown that for most recent-ish retirees (those retired in the last 10 years), t ...
Lik 發表於 2009/10/22 00:17

That's only if you set your pension benefits at unsustainable levels.
Money doesn't come from nowhere.

Defined benefits is history. It's a crime to even mention it.

作者: 快樂牛郎 時間: 2009-10-22 00:28

Biggest difference is, compared to HK, US has a much higher tax rate, and both 401k and HSA are registered tax shelters, thereby providing both instant and longer term financial incentives to the pla ...
Lik 發表於 2009/10/21 23:32

I think you are right, but most people just put a fixed % of money into their 401(k) anyway.
All these are scams, but I am not complaining since they keep the stocks market floating.

作者: peter236 時間: 2009-10-22 01:01

I should add that from an employee's perspective, 401k's are generally inferior to a defined pension plan. Studies have shown that for most recent-ish retirees (those retired in the last 10 years), t ...
Lik 發表於 2009-10-22 01:17

The US is bankrupt anyway, they have huge unfunded liabilities.

作者: Lik 時間: 2009-10-22 08:50

本帖最後由 Lik 於 2009-10-22 08:52 編輯

That's only if you set your pension benefits at unsustainable levels.
Money doesn't come from nowhere.

Defined benefits is history. It's a crime to even mention it.
快樂牛郎發表於 2009-10-22 00:25

Not true. Take a look at this TIME magazine article here:

http://tinyurl.com/ye3xdtk

I've read other articles panning 401k's before as well.

Defined pension plans are the gold standard of all pension plans, and they are perfectly good and alive here in Canada. I think most/all public sector employees in BC and Ontario at least are covered by similar defined pension plans.

-Lik

作者: sheep 時間: 2009-10-22 08:57

斷估過去15年既inflation 都冇300% 卦...
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2009-10-21 23:07

你話呢
你係數學天才
唔會唔知
Compound 同 Simple

作者: sheep 時間: 2009-10-22 09:00

Just look at the $US vs $Canadian or the Euro. The $US has already gone down a lot in value.
peter236 發表於 2009-10-22 00:23

Then, you think who suffers?

作者: fibbi 時間: 2009-10-22 09:54

我諗每個發達國家都有貧富懸殊嘅問題，講窮，我始終覺得（唔好計瞓街嗰啲）美國點窮，都無香港住籠屋嗰啲咁慘，無喺中國農村嗰啲要日日行幾里路先有水有學返嗰啲咁慘。（更正，有學返已經好好）

作者: news 時間: 2009-10-22 10:39

im pretty sure china is really happy the US$ is going down the drain right peter?...and there are hell a lot more poor ppl in china like fibbi said that are not counted in the stats than in US for sure

作者: peter236 時間: 2009-10-22 10:53

im pretty sure china is really happy the US$ is going down the drain right peter?...and there are hell a lot more poor ppl in china like fibbi said that are not counted in the stats than in US for sur ...
news 發表於 2009-10-22 11:39

That is why China is using their $US to buy more oil and other natural resources all over the world.

作者: Ultraman 時間: 2009-10-22 13:18

香港貧富懸殊全球最嚴重.

作者: fibbi 時間: 2009-10-22 15:00

37# Ultraman

Really? I thought China would be worse?

作者: Ultraman 時間: 2009-10-22 15:04

37# Ultraman

Really? I thought China would be worse?
fibbi 發表於 2009-10-22 15:00

I just read the news from Mxng Pxo today.

作者: Littleprince 時間: 2009-10-22 17:31

38# fibbi

係呀﹐力哥響#7 QUOTE 左份報告﹐只係唔知呢個數字有幾 UPDATE。。。我猜中國都唔會差好遠﹐可能他們比較難得出準確數字而已。

作者: tofu 時間: 2009-10-22 18:49

they are talking about 已發展經濟體系中, so china is not included.

作者: peter236 時間: 2009-10-22 20:47

37# Ultraman

Really? I thought China would be worse?
fibbi 發表於 2009-10-22 16:00

Actually some people say India is worse.

作者: sheep 時間: 2009-10-22 20:49

Actually some people say India is worse.
peter236 發表於 2009-10-22 21:47

So you are happy that China is the second worst?

作者: 快樂牛郎 時間: 2009-10-22 22:28

Not true. Take a look at this TIME magazine article here:

http://tinyurl.com/ye3xdtk

I've read other articles panning 401k's before as well.

Defined pension plans are the gold standard of all pens ...
Lik 發表於 2009/10/22 08:50

Your article has nothing to do with the sustainability of defined benefit plans.

Here's why: Remember, the biggest factor in whether the 401(k) works as designed has to do with when you retire. If the market rises that year, you're fine. If you retired last year, you're toast. And the chances of your becoming a victim of this huge flaw in the 401(k) plan are pretty high. The market fell in four of the nine years since the beginning of the decade. That means anyone retiring this decade had a nearly 50% chance of leaving work in a down market

This is precisely why pension reserves took a great hit in the last two years. The reserves got 50% smaller because of the market while the same pay outs had to be made.

You are saying defined benefit plans are better for retirees. Hell, everybody knows that. Of course it's better for me to get $3K a month in the mail, but are you the one who's gonna fund that?

作者: 快樂牛郎 時間: 2009-10-22 22:29

I really hate when people just depend on others to feed them. If you have no money left when you retire, that's not my problem. Why should I take the burden of keeping your unsustainably high standard of living?

作者: Lik 時間: 2009-10-22 23:03

IIRC, the public sector defined pension plans (not CPP) are required by law/their own policies to set aside some huge sum of $$ to ensure the paying off of the retirees, and the investment of that sum is quite conservative, meaning that it won't suffer any huge losses. In fact, even at the height of the financial crisis, I don't think the this fund lost any money at all -- it's just that the gain was something minuscule like 1 to 4%.

Additionally, not all pension plans have inflation adjustments -- some do, but some only have partial ones, and some have none. . And then you have the current generation of contributors to pay into the plan, as well as the ability for the pension company to increase contribution amounts when the need arises, so the feasibility is not that bad ge.

-Lik

作者: soli 時間: 2009-10-23 17:33

我估計紐約貧富懸殊絕對嚴重過香港~

作者: 快樂牛郎 時間: 2009-10-23 21:14

貧富懸殊 is a good thing
it keeps people motivated

作者: Lik 時間: 2009-10-23 22:55

貧富懸殊 is a good thing
it keeps people motivated
快樂牛郎發表於 2009-10-23 21:14

站於疑點歸於被告嘅大前題之下，我暫且當你係響道玩嘲諷（雖然我絕對覺得你毫無此意）。如果唔係嘅話，我阿力一定口誅筆伐，小到你體無完膚！

-力

作者: peter236 時間: 2009-10-23 23:14

本帖最後由 peter236 於 2009-10-24 00:16 編輯

站於疑點歸於被告嘅大前題之下，我暫且當你係響道玩嘲諷（雖然我絕對覺得你毫無此意）。如果唔係嘅話，我阿力一定口誅筆伐，小到你體無完膚！

-力 ...
Lik 發表於 2009-10-23 23:55

You are such a rude person. Who do you think you are?

作者: kipposhi 時間: 2009-10-24 09:36

Communism rules! Then you get Gini coefficient which is 0.

作者: somewhereintime 時間: 2009-10-24 16:57

Communism rules! Then you get Gini coefficient which is 0.
kipposhi 發表於 2009-10-24 09:36

How many Communist countries left now? other than Cuba and North Korea

作者: sheep 時間: 2009-10-24 19:09

You are such a rude person. Who do you think you are?
peter236 發表於 2009-10-24 00:14

有人混淆視聽
就要撥亂反正

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2009-10-24 19:58

站於疑點歸於被告嘅大前題之下，我暫且當你係響道玩嘲諷（雖然我絕對覺得你毫無此意）。如果唔係嘅話，我阿力一定口誅筆伐，小到你體無完膚！

-力 ...
Lik 發表於 2009-10-24 14:55

堅尼系數過又唔好, 共產既堅尼系數太低又唔好, 究竟要點要好呢? 點先可以攞到一個平衡呢?...
小弟真係唔知點先係最好... 雖然而家香港既堅尼系數咁高, 但我都生活得幾安落, 唔知我點先可以幫到d 生活o係水深火熱既人民呢?

堅尼系數, 貧富懸殊既地方, 正正係生意人最喜歡既地方. 因為佢地可以賺到盡! 不過, 如果政府有d 政策令有錢人要回饋番d 錢出黎(如:稅款), 咁d 生意人又可能會唔like香港, 轉移去令一個堅尼系數高既地方投資, 咁香港既經濟就會變差了...

魚與熊掌乎?

作者: somewhereintime 時間: 2009-10-24 20:11

My wealth is in my heart

作者: 快樂牛郎 時間: 2009-10-25 19:04

Anybody watched Capitalism yet?

歡迎光臨溫哥華老友記討論區 (http://loyaukee.com/forum/)