溫哥華老友記討論區 - Powered by Discuz! Board

標題: [社論] 「富」不值傷神「仇」 [打印本頁]

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-11-25 01:43 標題: 「富」不值傷神「仇」

本帖最後由 rockypath 於 2011-11-25 01:48 編輯

在網上看到一篇我認同的文章。正如我之前曾經說過的，香港政府如果要幫助貧困家庭，最重要的不是提供多少金錢補助給他們，而是要提升他們的勞動技能和在勞動市場的競爭力。並發展新的經濟使得這些隨著被淘汰的工業一起被勞動市場淘汰的工人有新的發展空間和機會。金錢補助只能解決一時之困，幫助他們重新進入勞動市場和提升勞動技能才是長久之計。（換句話說，也就是解決 Social Mobility 的問題）。

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

「富」不值傷神「仇」
11月 25日星期五 08:15 更新

【iMoney智富雜誌—荷馬學人集】

早前的區議會選舉結果，可以說是一記沉重的當頭棒喝，喚醒了許多政客的思維。泛民整體在選舉中失利，損失了不少「理所當然」的議席，明星政客以至政黨高層，竟也紛紛落馬。但塞翁失馬，焉知非福，泛民或因此痛定思痛，捨偏鋒之路，再不恃天之驕子之勢，學懂實事求是，真正走入人群中服務（事緣此次當選的區議員，許多都是多年來在基層解決民生問題的人。）

現今香港，民生議題究竟是否一大能留住選民的關鍵？我認為絕對是：基於外圍大環境因素，熱錢大量湧入，樓價在短時間內急升，呎價動輒逾萬元的樓盤處處皆是，租金同樣拾級而上。因為巿區租貴而無奈遷往郊區，也令每天上班、返學的交通費所費不菲。這對一個低收入家庭來說，負擔可真不少，故此衣食住行中，「衣食」即使盡量節儉，但「住行」卻省無可省，最後只能咬緊牙關「頂硬上」。

────────────────────

發展代價︰貧富懸殊

前幾天社聯發表了一個調查，推算超過一成八市民生活在匱乏的貧窮家庭，基本如牙科檢查或生病看醫生等，對他們來說也是奢侈之舉，生活捉襟見肘。所以，面對貧窮這日益嚴重的民生議題，市民當然傾向選出能「落手落腳」做事的議員。

但是，政客和部分團體常常把貧窮這民生問題與貧富懸殊混為一談，認為貧富差距是社會矛盾之源，而在政客與部分媒體渲染下，社會上的仇富情緒也日益嚴重。其實，貧窮和貧富懸殊是兩個根源不同的問題，所以處理貧窮問題不代表就要仇富。

縱觀現今社會，在各領域上獨佔鰲頭的人，許多是「五十後」、「六十後」。例如商界前10名富豪，大多是平民出身，經自身努力與因緣際會而事業成功。醫學界名醫，也是經過多年的寒窗苦讀與非人的醫學訓練才捱出頭。甚至曾特首跟港府很多領導層，也同樣來自於平民階層，獅子山下的奇跡在過去三、四十年不斷上演。在這個發展過程中，我們不能期待每人都可創造奇跡，大家回看自己兒時的玩伴或同學，或多或少仍有人原地踏步，其中有些是個人選擇。所以，貧富懸殊是我們過去數十年來成功發展的必然副產品。

────────────────────

根本問題︰社會流動性

香港過去的經濟發展政策，造就少數企業的興起，藉其發展壯大，小市民亦因而受惠，顯而易見的例子是地產和金融業。地產商控制樓市供應，樓價連創新高，小業主也因而獲利，而與地產息息相關的金融業亦蓬勃起來。故此，富者愈富其實不是社會問題，因為社會其他人能共享成果，而部分為富不仁、謀取暴利的企業，長遠終會被市場淘汰，不值我們傷神仇富。

So then what is the issue？我們要解決的，其實是更深層次的Social Mobility（or Lack of，社會流動性）。基層市民已愈難找到生活質量提升的途徑，例如，30年前大家有個明確的目標，知道上大學是改善生活的一個好法門，但現今大學生與碩士生舉目皆是，覺得前途茫茫絕不為過。社會福利雖然能紓緩部分經濟壓力，卻治標不治本，不能整體解決Social Mobility 這基本問題。最怕是大家習以為常，陷入長期倚靠社會福利的Welfare State，相信今日瀕臨破產邊緣的希臘就是典型例子。與其我們在貧富懸殊上爭吵不休，倒不如大家專心討論及解決香港現今Lack of Social Mobility這困局好了。

────────────────────

撰文：荷馬學人

三位識於微時的「七十後」金融界精英，畢業於美國著名學府。黃元山在紐倫港打滾投行11年後，現轉投評論和慈善工作；另外兩人完成博士學位後自組對沖基金。他們期望運用經濟學的思維，透視社會光怪陸離的現象。

http://hk.biz.yahoo.com/111125/377/4ct81.html

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2011-11-25 07:54

Quite a briefing...

作者: Look4chrisng 時間: 2011-11-25 10:02

His agreements were bankrupt for a long time. Today we are facing:
1) the majority of people are getting poorer and
2) the poverty pool is getting larger.

Social mobility is only used to dope people these days.

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2011-11-25 10:06

本帖最後由 lo_pak 於 2011-11-25 10:10 編輯

回復 3# Look4chrisng

The fundamental problem can't be solved under high housing price...

I just can't stand people saying housing price still has room for advancing. Living quality has been dropping these days...

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-11-25 13:26

His agreements were bankrupt for a long time. Today we are facing:
1) the majority of people are ge ...
Look4chrisng 發表於 2011-11-25 10:02

One of the reasons HK people get poor is the industries used to be the supporting pillar of 香港經濟騰飛 were eliminated and faded out the economy. People who were employed by or trained for the jobs were eliminated along with them.

When there is no new economy and new opportunities for the growing up generation, we should be able to expect the kind of situation to be.

One of my friends returned to HK and he told me that HK is not an environment to encourage and welcome 實業, but instead it would encourage people to 投資 (或更確切來說是投機). So he basically used his money to" 投資" instead of establishing a business (實業) to create jobs.

作者: Look4chrisng 時間: 2011-11-25 13:46

And who is it to blame?

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2011-11-25 13:47

本帖最後由 lo_pak 於 2011-11-25 13:50 編輯

回復 6# Look4chrisng

Mostly the government... Policy dealing with poverty is a total failure...

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-11-25 14:42

And who is it to blame?
Look4chrisng 發表於 2011-11-25 13:46

I had said it many time before, the government is the one to be blamed.

But it doesn't mean I would agree with the opinions of other people who would only demand the government to give out cash and believe that is the solution.

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-11-25 16:40

But it doesn't mean I would agree with the opinions of other people who would only demand the government to give out cash and believe that is the solution.
rockypath 發表於 2011-11-25 14:42

In an ideal world, I would not demand the government to just hand out cash to the citizens either. But HK is far from an ideal world, and the HKSAR admin has repeatedly demonstrated that they have no vision, no leadership, and worse of all, no ability to do anything right at all. They only thing they sort of know and is reasonably good at is to suck and lick Grandfather's toes.

With that in mind, would you want to see them try and put together any sort of government program in HK? With new generally elected leadership, that would be an idea worth pursuing. But given the current crop of useless morons, I'd much rather see them attempt nothing at all and just return the money that rightfully belongs to HK people instead. Give the HK folks their money back, and let them use it as they see fit to save themselves. In general, HK folks are still smart enough to do that.

-Lik

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-11-27 02:19

本帖最後由 rockypath 於 2011-11-27 02:43 編輯

In an ideal world, I would not demand the government to just hand out cash to the citizens either. ...
Lik 發表於 2011-11-25 16:40

為將來做長遠規劃和實施通常都是吃力不討好的事。沒有幾個官員願意去做得罪選民為他人種樹的事。

派錢是政府能夠做的最簡單且對長遠將來最不負責任的事。

政府不願意去做，那負責監督他們的那些“為民請命”的議員做了什麼？反而是替政府選擇一條最不負責任的方案。只能說他們也不願意也沒有興趣為市民的將來謀福祉。 Find an easy way out 大家都可以交差就好了。這種不負責任的做法反而得到那些盲從分子擁護備至。

政府官員是面瞢心精，“為民請命”的議員是別有用心，他們的追隨者是盲目無知。

Ｐ．Ｓ．你不用開口我都能猜得到你要說什麼，因為你千篇一律只有一種辯解。我可以告訴你，你們教主的做法對與否和政府的做法是獨立存在的。不會因為政府錯就自動證明你的教主對，也不會因為官員無能就證明你教主有本事。這是非常簡單明瞭的道理。你的ＩＱ應該不會低到連這個道理都不能理解。

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-11-27 22:35

同你講度理其實係完全徙氣，但唔緊要，我都會同你講。

你根本就避開晒我上面個post所講嘅野。特衰正苦無能至始，做果樣衰果樣（就連派錢都派得衰過人），再唔係就只會益地產商、有錢佬、銀行、fund佬。叫佢派錢就係因為深知佢無能，乜鬼野都做唔到，所以先至寧願現兜兜咁叫出磅水。個特區政府又唔係無錢，現今嘅財富儲備就算四年政府都完全無收入都一樣足夠營運。咁唔叫佢派錢等啲錢就咁坐響庫房收果1、2％嘅息呀？

而且，我枉你仲敢睇為民請命嘅議員。飯民前後提出過幾多修訂、議案等等，如果唔係保皇黨+功能組別否決嘅話，9萬幾樣野做就做晒出來啦？政府官員是面瞢心精lu喎？精到好似唐唐咁醒目呀嘛～

歪理為阿爺護航你就識。

-力

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-11-27 23:16

同你講度理其實係完全徙氣，但唔緊要，我都會同你講。

你根本就避開晒我上面個post所講嘅野。特衰正苦無能 ...
Lik 發表於 2011-11-27 22:35

傻仔就是傻仔。你教主如何玩弄你都照單全收。

政府有錢就更要為將來謀劃，難道要等到庫房沒有錢香港競爭力下降之後才去做啊？你覺得到時還來得及嗎？

如果你的教主真正是為香港的將來發展，他在立法院得不到支持，他大可以推動社會群眾和媒體輿論支持他。但他做了什麼？除了會羞辱官員和其他持不同政見的議員之外，他做了什麼真正得到廣大香港市民覺得有意義和支持的事？

你也不用給我帶帽子。你不會因為給我多幾頂帽子就能讓你更有道理。那只能表明你心虛和詞窮。

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-11-27 23:34

政府有錢就更要為將來謀劃，難道要等到庫房沒有錢香港競爭力下降之後才去做啊？你覺得到時還來得及嗎？
rockypath 發表於 2011-11-27 23:16

全世界除咗特區政府之外，仲邊度有任何一個政府會好似特區政府咁庫房水浸，儲備多到4年無入息到可以繼續營運？！人地唔記得係IMF定係邊度都只係 recommend 你有18個月左右嘅儲備就已經好足夠。呢啲錢全部都係納稅人嘅血汗錢，你個政府hog住晒唔係叫做未雨綢繆，而係叫做守財成奴！

將呢啲錢退還返晒落人民身上，派錢又好，有效地搞project又好，錢滾錢出來嘅成效遠遠高過你收晒落美國債券賺返來果1、2%利息！

同你講咁多簡直係徙我時間！

-力

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-11-27 23:54

本帖最後由 rockypath 於 2011-11-27 23:56 編輯

全世界除咗特區政府之外，仲邊度有任何一個政府會好似特區政府咁庫房水浸，儲備多到4年無入息到可以繼續營 ...
Lik 發表於 2011-11-27 23:34

香港政府現在有錢，但你能保證香港一直會如此富裕下去嗎？香港的競爭力不會被其他城市和國家的挑戰嗎？我想你不會真的太天真太傻呱？

你有膽量直接回答我的問題嗎－投資發展新的經濟和提高香港市民的勞動競爭力對香港的長遠發展是否比直接發錢給個人更有意義和值得去做？ YES or NO. Get you gut out and answer me directly. Don't be a coward.

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2011-11-27 23:58

將呢啲錢退還返晒落人民身上，派錢又好，有效地搞project又好，錢滾錢出來嘅成效遠遠高過你收晒落美國債券賺返來果1、2%利息！
Lik 發表於 2011-11-28 15:34

搞project 唔係唔好, 不過o係香港都係少做少錯, 搞project 次次都比人講到係官商勾結. 正如我盲字都唔識隻既外父話齋, 比著佢係特首, 就會將d 錢派哂出去, 財散人安落之餘, 又唔會比人話官商勾結, 話守財成奴. 大不了派完之後就腰痛下台~

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2011-11-28 00:01

投資發展新的經濟和提高香港市民的勞動競爭力對香港的長遠發展是否比直接發錢給個人更有意義和值得去做？
rockypath 發表於 2011-11-28 15:54

力兄覺得無能既香港政府冇能力做到呢d 目標. d 錢最終都會落o係d 大財團, 基金佬, banker 既手, 令香港既堅尼系數有加無減, 令基層市民更加生活o係冇民主既水深火熱之中.

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-11-28 00:12

香港政府現在有錢，但你能保證香港一直會如此富裕下去嗎？香港的競爭力不會被其他城市和國家的挑戰嗎？ ...
rockypath 發表於 2011-11-27 23:54

你今日有工做，但你能夠保證你一直都會繼續有工做咩？一般嘅 financial planning 都係叫你儲 3至6個月嘅 rainy day fund就已經足夠。最多我都只係見過叫人儲1年錢（嘅 rainy day fund）。照你咁講，你依家成份糧儲起晒佢，連飯都唔可開，等你儲夠4年嘅 rainy day fund 先至再諗啦？唔記得邊條茂利官仲夠薑話財政儲備梗係越多越好，咁呢世都唔好使呀，笨？！

我第三次同你講：今日嘅特衰政府，有能力去發展新嘅經濟同提高香港市民勞動競爭力咩？有嘅話回歸14年來已經做咗啦？又點會成個香港越攪越衰？！明知你個政府無能，所以先至有聲音叫你乜都唔好搞，就咁磅水等我自己救自己。

淨係識得徙我時間！

-力

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2011-11-28 00:14

In short, a mess...

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-11-28 00:17

力兄覺得無能既香港政府冇能力做到呢d 目標. d 錢最終都會落o係d 大財團, 基金佬, banker 既手, 令香港既 ...
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2011-11-28 00:01

那將庫房一起分曬，每個人拿到一筆錢之後各自修行。你覺得如何？呢個方案阿力應該支持了呱？

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2011-11-28 00:23

那將庫房一起分曬，每個人拿到一筆錢之後各自修行。你覺得如何？呢個方案阿力應該支持了呱？ ...
rockypath 發表於 2011-11-28 16:17

分錢之後每人送隻木伐踢哂佢地出公海! 哈哈~

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2011-11-28 00:25

我第三次同你講：今日嘅特衰政府，有能力去發展新嘅經濟同提高香港市民勞動競爭力咩？有嘅話回歸14年來已經做咗啦？又點會成個香港越攪越衰？！明知你個政府無能，所以先至有聲音叫你乜都唔好搞，就咁磅水等我自己救自己。
Lik 發表於 2011-11-28 16:12

well, 其實我我知道政府無能, 但我有自知之明覺得自己比政府更無能, 所以選擇比佢搞好過.

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-11-28 01:00

well, 其實我我知道政府無能, 但我有自知之明覺得自己比政府更無能, 所以選擇比佢搞好過. ...
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2011-11-28 00:25

你咁做就無問題，因為係你自己用你嘅個人意志選擇將啲本來就係屬於你自己嘅錢交俾基金工公司打理。但現行強迫金卻剝奪咗人民嘅呢個選舉權。

-力

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-11-28 01:05

啲廢柴無恥之極。我唔該佢地唔好扮睇唔到：

http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5 ... #.E6.89.B9.E8.A9.95

有批評認為強積金剝奪僱員自行選擇投資意向的自由。2008年立法會選舉，甚至有候選人以「取消強積金」為政綱。而亦有部份僱主為減少支出，強迫僱員轉為「自僱人士」；亦有僱主拖欠供款，使僱員得不到應有保障。另有批評指強積金管理人收取的管理費太高，假設投資回報是每年5%，而基金管理費是每年2%，一個月入2萬港元的人供款40年後，累計的管理費加上複利作用，會導致最終可收取的退休金比起「零管理費」的情況少收超過3成，即少收超過100萬港元。直至2010年，累積的強積金總值已達三千四百億港元，但行政費仍然偏高。股評人胡孟青指強積金市場形成寡頭壟斷局面，雖然認可的基金信託機構有十九間，但管理基金總值最高的五家已佔整體市場近七成，只要幾家龍頭大行不減價，其他信託人亦無減價的誘因。十年過去，一眾信託人已坐收逾六十六億港元打工仔血汗錢。

-力

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-11-28 01:09

啲廢柴無恥之極。我唔該佢地唔好扮睇唔到：

-力
Lik 發表於 2011-11-28 01:05

請問阿力你在加拿大投資基金，基金會收你幾個巴仙管理費？

忘了問你有沒有投資過基金。

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2011-11-28 01:13

你咁做就無問題，因為係你自己用你嘅個人意志選擇將啲本來就係屬於你自己嘅錢交俾基金工公司打理。但現行 ...
Lik 發表於 2011-11-28 17:00

都唔係完全冇得揀. 都好似有十幾廿間揀, 仲有唔同風險既plan. 當然, 強積金係為左退休既保障, 我唔會為左果0.1% 而去比一間細行去manage, 都係大行穩陣d.

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2011-11-28 01:14

請問阿力你在加拿大投資基金，基金會收你幾個巴仙管理費？

忘了問你有沒有投資過基金。 ...
rockypath 發表於 2011-11-28 17:09

其實睇係個基金出唔出名, 表現理唔理想.
你夠叻仔既話, 收50% 手續費都會有人買的.

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-11-28 09:33

其實睇係個基金出唔出名, 表現理唔理想.
你夠叻仔既話, 收50% 手續費都會有人買的. ...
mcjohnjohn 發表於 2011-11-28 01:14

阿力的基金是唔單只不收管理費，還保證有得賺。令我不得不懷疑這個基金的背後金主是ＣＩＡ。這個基金是ＣＩＡ支付阿力酬勞的戶口。

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-11-28 10:46

請問阿力你在加拿大投資基金，基金會收你幾個巴仙管理費？

忘了問你有沒有投資過基金。 ...
rockypath 發表於 2011-11-28 01:09

講咗咁多N次你都唔明，我真係唔知你係死蠢呀？扮唔明呀？定係無恥？
最大嘅重點係，強迫金係政府立法迫你買，而所得既利益就送晒俾班已經好疊水嘅大行、基金佬。咁樣唔係政府製造同加劇貧富懸殊又係乜？我自己去買 funds 嘅話，呢個係我選擇嘅自由意志。啲錢係我嘅，我鍾意點使同俾邊個賺係我嘅事，你個政府做做乜要迫我送錢俾啲大行同基金佬去使？
第二係，我真係唔知你石仔點解咁廢，呢度啲基金嘅管理費又邊度有香港垃圾強迫金收果啲咁高？
一如已往，你一直都無會應我指出嘅問題所在，但我就全部KO晒你所講嘅垃圾論點。
收皮啦你～
-力

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-11-28 11:04

第二係，我真係唔知你石仔點解咁廢，呢度啲基金嘅管理費又邊度有香港垃圾強迫金收果啲咁高？
一如已往，你一直都無會應我指出嘅問題所在，但我就全部KO晒你所講嘅垃圾論點。
收皮啦你～
Lik 發表於 2011-11-28 10:46

Why don't you just answer my question directly coward?

Ask you one more time - what is the percentage the mutual fund will charge you in Canada.

Get your gut out coward. Just answer my question directly. I just need a number and don't BS anything else.

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-11-28 11:22

Why don't you just answer my question directly coward?

Ask you one more time - what is the perc ...
rockypath 發表於 2011-11-28 11:04

Why should I tell you about my personal finance info?

In the market, I have seen funds that range from no service charge to 1.something %. MPF, on the other hand, used to have service charges as high as 2.something percent. It was widely acknowledge that MPF service charges were excessively high compared to other funds. The fact that they are mandatory only adds more insult to injury.

It goes back to the same 2 questions:

1) why is it mandatory?
2) why are the guaranteed profits funnelled to the rich banks and fund managers, who are already extremely wealthy? What does that do to the wealth disparity?

Why don't you answer my question directly, huh?

-Lik

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-11-28 11:25

Why don't you just answer my question directly coward?
rockypath 發表於 2011-11-28 11:04

And I must point out, your use of the word "coward" already constitute "personal attack / insult". Not that I care, but since you started this, at least I am entitled to start throwing insults back at you. But hey, I'm just gonna ask the admin to deal with it.

Insulting people intelligently is a art and a skill that you have clearly not mastered. Too bad you are obviously unable to learn it. Ever.

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-11-28 11:45

本帖最後由 rockypath 於 2011-11-28 12:04 編輯

Why should I tell you about my personal finance info?

Did I ask for your personal finance info? LOL... I only ask for the percentage of the management fee mutual funds charge in general in Canada and the information is public. Again, you still do not have the gut to answer my question directly. if it is not a behavior of a coward, what is it?

1) why is it mandatory?

Why is CPP mandatory? Compare to 香港強積金, how much control do you have over your CPP? HK people have much more control over their retirement fund than your CPP. Is it not true?

2) why are the guaranteed profits funnelled to the rich banks and fund managers, who are already extremely wealthy? What does that do to the wealth disparity?

Are you telling us CPP does not cost anything to run? Who is paying for the management cost of CPP? If management fee is a guaranteed profit to rich HK bankers, isn't CPP also fueling the bankers as well? Management fee for a fund is a reason for wealth disparity in HK? Do you really believe we are idiots?

P.S. I can tell you that the management fee for one of my mutual funds is about 2.35% and it is already considered low. There are funds in my profolio charge a fee higher than that.

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-11-28 12:24

And I quote:

Ask you one more time - what is the percentage the mutual fund will charge you in Canada.
rockypath 發表於 2011-11-28 11:04

For anyone that knows proper English, which part of "you" in the above sentence doesn't refer to me, Ah Lik?

So how is it that you were not asking me for my personal info?

And someone said they were educated in some US engineering school wor~ Makes me wonder if his degree was obtained from one of those wild chicken buy-a-degree university~

HK folks may have "control" in selecting which financial institution manages their funds, and the investment profile of their funds. But it doesn't change the fact that the profits are channelled to private banks / financial institutions and fund managers that are already much closer to the top 1%. Being private institutions, they are only responsible to their investors, but not the public. CPP, on the other hand, is managed by a crown corp (CPP investment board). Being a crown corp, it is accountable to the public.

Clearly, your post has shown that you have zero understanding of how CPP works. Stop embarrassing yourself la.

If you think your 2.35% management fee is low, gum all I can say is -- congratulations la~ It's funny how some people still think they are getting a deal when they are clearly getting ripped off.

-Lik

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-11-28 12:36

Clearly, your post has shown that you have zero understanding of how CPP works. Stop embarrassing yourself la.
Lik 發表於 2011-11-28 12:24

Why do you continue to keep your head in the sand and be a coward?

Why don't you tell us how the CPP is managed and run? Just tell us and don't BS anything else.

We have been waiting. I don't mind to be embarrassed by you, but you always chose to be a coward instead of standing up like a man.

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-11-28 12:46

Why do you continue to keep your head in the sand and be a coward?

Why don't you tell us how the ...
rockypath 發表於 2011-11-28 12:36

Did you even read my post? Or is your English so severely crippled that you can't understand what has been written?

CPP, on the other hand, is managed by a crown corp (CPP Investment Board). Being a crown corp, it is accountable to the public.

You have clearly shown that you known nothing about CPP, other than that it is mandatory. Please stop spreading any additional false information regarding CPP.

I am not going to waste any more of my time on your worthless questions.

-Lik

作者: Look4chrisng 時間: 2011-11-28 12:55

本帖最後由 Look4chrisng 於 2011-11-28 12:56 編輯

回復 32# rockypath

Rockypath:  Just Straight facts

1.  Canadians also paying highest management fees for mutual funds.
2.  You can buy index funds in TD bank for 0.33%, but TD don't want you to know, so you can't buy them at any branch.
3.  HK Mutual funds are often front-end AND back-end loaded.  ie. you pay 3% for your contributions and and 3% to cash out.  Most canadian banks MF are no load.  That makes HK Mutual funds very expensive
4. You cannot compare CPP and 強積金.  They are 2 different things.  Also

Private pension system is not without problems.  Chilean has tried privatization in the early 80s, but didn't work.  World Bank has commented on private pension system.

"1980 pension system a strong redistributive component at the expenses of low paid or occasionally unemployed workers. A big part of the Chilean population is not able to finance meaningful pensions, because many workers are not able to regularly contribute a higher amount of money."

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2011-11-28 17:52

第二係，我真係唔知你石仔點解咁廢，呢度啲基金嘅管理費又邊度有香港垃圾強迫金收果啲咁高？
Lik 發表於 2011-11-29 02:46

你果邊d 啲基金嘅管理費好平架乍? 比d 數字來參考下丫? 我真係好想比較一下.

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2011-11-28 17:57

回復  rockypath

Rockypath:  Just Straight facts

1.  Canadians also paying highest management ...
Look4chrisng 發表於 2011-11-29 04:55

有料到, 又學到野! 言下之意, 各式各樣既退休保障計劃都有其利弊, 唔係咁容易可以簡單地直接比較, right?

作者: Look4chrisng 時間: 2011-11-28 18:30

回復 38# mcjohnjohn

yes.

作者: AdminAssist2 時間: 2011-11-28 19:31

all 3 suspected offenders put on "chill" mode for 7 days.

offending posts locked from further postings/correspondence.

AA2

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