[社論] 「富」不值傷神「仇」 技能, 香港政府, 文章

rockypath

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

AdminAssist2

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

offending posts locked from further postings/correspondence.

AA2

Look4chrisng

回復 38# mcjohnjohn


    yes.

mcjohnjohn

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?

mcjohnjohn

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.

Look4chrisng

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."

Lik

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

rockypath

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.

Lik

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

rockypath

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.