chunsh

所以你咪歪曲事實囉，無恥！



-力 ...
Lik 發表於 2011-11-28 00:53

又黎

rockypath

又黎
chunsh 發表於 2011-11-28 09:34

無恥之人話其他人無恥。 到底是誰無恥？  遊戲答案稍後公佈。  

Lik

香港絕對有條件實施類似ＲＲＳＰ的政策，但我有絕對信心你的教主一定會在立法會將政府鬧到飛起。 你是不是也同意我的說法？

Ｐ．Ｓ．  順便問一句，既然已經有政府的退休計劃，加拿大政府為什麼還要推出ＲＲＳＰ？其中的玄機是什麼？
rockypath 發表於 2011-11-28 09:24

收皮啦你～自知理虧就想扯開個話題，餐餐都係咁，用埋同一條屎橋。

有錢嘅話，我可以去買盡我嘅 RRSP；無錢或者我唔 like 就唔買。但你強迫金有無得揀？

CPP個制度唔係完美，我好敢肯定我第日退休果陣就一定攞唔返我供咗出去嘅 amount。但最少CPP佢行之有效、sustainable，而且亦唔會好似強迫金咁加劇貧富懸殊問題。

繼續做縮頭龜咁避晒我啲問題啦。唔夠我講就繼續轉移話題啦？

無鬼用～

-力

rockypath

有錢嘅話，我可以去買盡我嘅 RRSP；無錢或者我唔 like 就唔買。但你強迫金有無得揀？
Lik 發表於 2011-11-28 10:57

你話我知你的ＣＰＰ有沒有得揀？  Don't run away. Answer me directly.
你還沒有告訴我們ＣＰＰ的基金是如何運作。 有膽量回答嗎？ Be brave, don't be a coward.

chunsh

之前，AdminAssist, AdminAssit2 係o甘ban人，用字重的語氣都ban人, 效率非常高
而家同聲同氣既人發癲啦, I made a complain already
唔知 AA， AA2幾時做野呢

Lik

你話我知你的ＣＰＰ有沒有得揀？  Don't run away. Answer me directly.
你還沒有告訴我們ＣＰＰ的基金是 ...
rockypath 發表於 2011-11-28 11:00

What's your point in asking?

Both CPP and MPF are mandatory. The difference is, CPP is acceptable because as a government program, profits are not channelled to the rich banks and fund managers. As such, it does not worsen the wealth disparity in society.

Now why don't you answer me -- why is it acceptable for the HKSAR government to legislate programs that will clearly worsen the already severe wealth disparity problem in the HK society? I want a straight answer, not your usual pointless and empty beating around the bush.

-Lik

rockypath

What's your point in asking?

Both CPP and MPF are mandatory. The difference is, CPP is acceptable  ...
Lik 發表於 2011-11-28 11:29

First, CPP is just a pool of fund collected from Canadians. The fund is invested in market but not locked in safe. When the fund is invested, it is not risk-free as your friend claimed. Moreover, there is cost associated to the running (investing) of CPP as well. Don't try to tell me the cost (fee) charged for investing CPP is not considered profit of investing companies. Don't fool yourself that we are idiots.

Second, I do not see there is any association between the raise of contribution to MPF and the wealth disparity in Hong Kong. Why don't you do a pool on this forum and see how many people will agree with you?

Third, I would prefer to be able to control my CPP as MPF instead of letting the government has total control over how the CPP is invested and have no say on it.

BTW, Canada also raises the CPP contribution as well. Why do we not see you complain about that?

mcjohnjohn

加拿大退休金，可以說是一個大鑊，人人都要放錢入去，自己人工4.95%+老細4.95%，到65歲就係裡面羅，羅幾多 ...
ricrick 發表於 2011-11-28 18:49

ricrick 兄, 都係你夠朋友, 小弟又學到野了! 謝謝~

你地加拿大退休金係一隻大鑊, 我地香港MPF係各人有一隻飯碗. 其實我唔明白有乜分別, 因為你地隻鑊係就係大d, 但係"原則上，供款愈多及年期愈長，則將來可領取的退休金金額會愈高", 咁同自己食自己碗飯好似冇乜分別. 當然"原則上"呢一個term 好有可塑性.

其實你地隻大鑊係唔係冇乜錢(因為應該會有人不斷拎丫麻)? 如果有錢, 都應該要炒一炒先至可以令隻鑊入面d 料更香, 可能我係香港人啦, 真係覺得唔炒過唔安落的. 哈哈~

mcjohnjohn

Ｐ．Ｓ．  順便問一句，既然已經有政府的退休計劃，加拿大政府為什麼還要推出ＲＲＳＰ？其中的玄機是什麼？
rockypath 發表於 2011-11-29 01:24

我覺得因為退休計劃好有機會唔夠錢派, 所以比定心理準備你班友仔要自己食自己.
正如我都非常了解MPF 一定support 唔到我既退休生活一樣.

mcjohnjohn

What's your point in asking?

Both CPP and MPF are mandatory. The difference is, CPP is acceptable because as a government program, profits are not channelled to the rich banks and fund managers. As such, it does not worsen the wealth disparity in society.

Now why don't you answer me -- why is it acceptable for the HKSAR government to legislate programs that will clearly worsen the already severe wealth disparity problem in the HK society? I want a straight answer, not your usual pointless and empty beating around the bush.

-Lik
Lik 發表於 2011-11-29 03:29

唔係呀化... 叫我地全能既香港政府自己搞MPF? 佢地做乜都做唔成, 梗係比人搞好過啦. 呢d 錢真係唔慳得. 如果真係要政府搞, 我相信個營運成本一定超高, 除非佢將筆錢放哂入外匯基金, "順便"去撈一撈, 不過, 咁樣政府就要揹哂投資既risk 了.