溫哥華老友記討論區 - Powered by Discuz! Board

標題: 退稅落空煙稅車稅大增 [打印本頁]

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-2-23 10:18 標題: 退稅落空煙稅車稅大增

http://inews.mingpao.com/htm/inews/20110223/aa31350i.htm

退稅落空煙稅車稅大增 (13:50)

財爺預算案揭盅，沒有不少人期待的退稅，但提升父母子女免稅額和寬免差餉一年。煙稅車稅均大幅增加。

根據財政司長曾俊華今日宣讀預算案，供養父母或子女的免稅額將增加2成。其中，供養60歲或以上的父母或祖父母，免稅額由現時3萬元增加至3.6萬。供養55至59歲的父母或祖父母，免稅額會由1.5萬元增加至1.8萬元，而同住的納稅人享有同樣增幅的額外免稅額。

同時，子女免稅額增加1萬，由現時每名子女5萬元增加至6萬元，子女出生年度享有的一次性額外免稅額，也由5萬提高至6萬。

另一項惠民的稅務措施，是寬免2011至12年度全年的差餉，以每戶每季1500元為上限。估計約82%物業的業主受惠。

不過，為鼓勵戒煙和抑遏私家車增長，煙草稅和汽車首次登記稅卻大幅增加。

其中，煙草稅即日起大增41.5%，每支煙的稅款調高5角，至1.706元。換言之，一包20支裝香煙，稅款就達34.12元，較之前增加達10元。

其他煙草產品的稅率，亦按同等比例增加，如每支雪茄的稅款，由1.553元增至2.197元。

汽車方面，私家車首次登記稅率，各稅階將上調5個至15個百分點，即日生效，但其他汽車類別的首次登記稅，以及現時為電動汽車和環保汽油私家車提供的優惠則維持不變。

根據建議，私家車最初15萬元應課價值的稅率，會由35%上調至40%。其次15萬元的稅率，由65%加至75%。再其次的20萬元，由85%加至100%。剩餘的應課稅價值(即50萬元以上餘額)的稅率，更由100%加至115%。

財爺未提退稅，令不少納稅人士失望，但他提出一項「不會增加通脹壓力」的派錢措施－－向所有擁有強積金的市民，一次過派發6000元，注入他們的強積金戶口。

曾俊華表示，凡於今年2月23日已成為強積金計劃或職業退休計劃下，受香港《僱傭條例》涵蓋的人士，強積金戶口將獲一次過注入6,000元。

他表示，已經為這項措施預留240億元，稍後會公布詳情，希望在2011至12年度內，開始向戶口注入款項。

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-2-23 10:47

只能夠再三咁講：鬍鬚曾守財正仆街！特衰政府麻木不仁，置民間窒苦於不顧！

當今日香港貧富懸殊咁嚴重、政府坐擁龐大儲備、面對百物騰貴嘅壓力，你鬍鬚曾+特衰政府竟然依然可以隊份咁仆街嘅財政預算案出來，可以幫到普羅市民咩？

香港稅率本身就已經低，所以提高免稅額對本來要交稅嘅人來講根本幫助唔大。而面對貧窮問題嚴重嘅人來講，佢地本來就已經搵錢唔多，根本一開始就已經唔使交稅。所以你鬍鬚曾提高父母、子女免稅額根本就一啲都幫佢地唔到。

好喇，減差餉喎～仲要每季豪減＄1500俾你班業主添！成年夾埋減＄6000咁多，班業主真係要向你財爺蓋頭謝恩呀！再講，受惠嘅只係業主，窮人根本就買唔起樓，咁又何來受惠呢？所以呢個政策亦都係莫視窮人。

好喇，煙草稅又再大增。都係果句，你咪即係繼續逼戒唔到煙嘅人去買私煙同假煙？咁樣簡直係害人。

所謂嘅派錢：注＄6000入佢地嘅強積金戶口。香港人真係要再一次咁多謝你呀！我今日已經窮到山窮水盡，就來連飯都無得開，但係強積金就要65歲先有得攞。我未夠65已經死Q咗啦？再者，香港強積金嘅管理費係全世界嘅基金之中最高嘅一群，而自強積金實施已來，絕大部份嘅人嘅強積金都係蝕錢嘅。但你特衰政府卻偏偏要繼續泵多啲錢入去，咁唔係益基金公司同大鱷，仲可以係啲乜？

叫你派錢又唔派，真係唔diu柒你都唔得。

-力

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-2-23 12:00

舊年鬧鬍鬚曾嘅說話，今年依然句句精確無比...

真係香港人嘅悲哀...

[youtube]gzNB9KMoF6U[/youtube]

作者: peter236 時間: 2011-2-23 12:41

Good for Hong Kong with very strong finances, much stronger than US, UK and Canada etc.

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-2-23 12:52

Excerpt from the news:

http://news.mingpao.com/20110224/gaa1.htm

強積金遭詬病學者倡改革

恒生管理學院商學院長蘇偉文認為，退稅刺激通脹大幅升溫的機會不大，「大部分納稅人都交很少稅，他們獲發的退稅額亦不多，未必會因退稅而大額增加消費」。他認為，強積金制度遭人詬病，政府卻大額注資，這是「好心做壞事」，政治上容易遭攻擊，建議政府注資的同時，必須盡快改革強積金制度，否則政策難令市民信服。

強積金一直被批評管理費過高、回報低等問題，社區組織協會主任何喜華批評，政府注資強積金是胡亂花費公帑，未有針對協助窮人抗通脹。「五無」基層勞工（沒領綜援、沒交稅、沒住公屋、沒子女、沒交差餉電費）更不能受惠，他批評政府涼薄，漠視窮人。

作者: peter236 時間: 2011-2-23 13:09

Good that Hong Kong does not have HST.

作者: Catpiano 時間: 2011-2-23 13:21

Good wor .. add more tax to smoke la..

Still cheap .. $34 .. ~ $4 cad ..

I dont understand is .. even after 75% tax ... Japanese cars over there, are still cheaper/about the same compare here ... ( and made in Japan! )

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-2-23 13:39

回復 2# Lik

Lik, only people who are short-sighted and lack of economic knowledge would be a supporter for giving out cash.

Ask your economic professors or people with economic background for their opinions on “giving out cash”. Haven’t I explained the reasons to you in another thread? Learn something before barking.

Without a strong economy, how would the government can help and improve the living standard of the poor? By printing bank notes? How stupid you are.

Increasing tax exemption level is a positive way used by many countries around the world and it can help the poor and encourage the economy. Learn the reasons why those countries would not choose to giving out cash.

As I already said, I agree the HK government should have done more to help the poor and needed. But “giving out cash” is not the action the government should take and it won’t help the society and HK economy in a long run.

If you want to debate with me, better get yourself prepared with some economic knowledge first.

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-2-23 14:14

Wow~ 5 cents Rocky is suddenly trying for civility~ Isn't that a radical change!

Look at the facts, and look around a little to see what other nearby places are doing. Macau has handed out $$ to all of their citizens for... what? the 3rd time in as many years now? Taiwan has done it as well in the midst of their economic hardships as well. Singapore or Malaysian has done the same thing as well, and certain Chinese cities are also don't the same thing. Why isn't HK doing something like that to help its citizens, esp when it has *HOARDS* of money in its reserves?

The thing is, the HKSAR government is already *extremely* rich. If they were to give out a little cash, they wouldn't be doing it by printing money or de-valuing the HKD. All they have to do is to take out tiny, tiny chunk of money from the reserves, and this will be achieved. Look at the HKSAR government figures I posted in the other thread -- if they were to give out HKD$10k to each citizen, the current reserves level would allow them to do this for 30 consecutive years. If you only give $5k, this can be done for 60 years straight. Can you imagine how much this would help those who are marginalized in the society?

If the SAR government were to give out money, a huge chunk of that money would immediately be injected into the economy to stimulate it (that is exactly what happened in TW). An increasingly larger population in HK is facing poverty, and the middle class is feeling the pinch as well. Had the government given them some money, the poor would immediately spend them to alleviate their pains of their daily lives. A little more meat on the table. A little fresher veggies instead of rotting leftovers from the market. A little assistance to let 小明 attend that field trip. A little ease on that debt. After that initial spending, the money churns around a couple more times. Had you knew any economics at all, this is known as the multiplier effect. Everybody benefits. More importantly, the money would be put to the best use by each and every individual. If they need food, they spend it on food. If they see greater benefits in investing it, they invest it however they want.

Since the SAR government is hoarding all this money, however, the only thing they know how to do with it is to invest them in bonds and stuff. So the US bonds pay 3% interest. In the hands of regular people, the economic benefits that can be produced will far exceed that 3% gain. The HK government is stupid to hoard that much cash because they are crippling economic growth themselves.

Now that I have answered your stupid questions, it's time for you to answer my meaningful ones. As usual, I doubt you'll give me straight answers anyway.

Given HK's already low tax rate, how would further lowering taxes or increasing tax exemption help the poor? The poor already doesn't have to pay any income taxes. When they are already paying nothing, how does giving them higher exemption amounts help? How?

I also see you purposely avoiding the topic of the SAR government putting money into 強積金. Please enlighten me with your infinite economics knowledge on who that move is helpful to the HK general public. It is a well-known and undisputed fact that management fees for 強積金 is way high, and that most people have lost money on the "investment". Now, let me ask you this -- who makes money on having higher 強積金 amounts? The investment firms, or regular Joe? Why is the SAR government willing to transfer this benefit to investment firms, but not to the citizens of HK? Why? A lot of people could make good use of this $6k right now, not wait until they are 65. When they can't even survive at this moment, what good does that $6k when the government tells them they'll get it at 65? They might not even make it there.

如果咁樣都唔係涼薄、唔係漠視窮人，咁點先算係呢？

Now answer me.

-Lik

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-2-23 15:09

本帖最後由 rockypath 於 2011-2-23 15:15 編輯

回復 9# Lik

Lik, can you tell me how much the HKD 10,000 can change the situation of the poor? If the $10,000 can solve their problems, I will give my all vote to giving out $50,000 or even more.

If political parties want to help the poor, they should had pushed the HK government to have an long-term action plan and funding to help the poor families to improve or obtain new work skills, helping them to find new and better jobs, investing in the development of new economy so that those poor people can find better opportunities after being retrained, easing their burdens on housing, transportation and education (aren’t these the problems they are facing every day?).

When most of families can only find a low-pay job due to the limitation of their work skills. The problem of poverty will not be improved and it can get worse. $10,000 will not help them get out of the situation.

Neither the HK government, nor the political parties are willing to put commitment into this. Why? It is a long-term process with slow return and has to wait for a long time before any positive result can be shown.

Lik, if you are truly for the good of Hong Kong people, why don’t you ask your be-loved 癲狗教主 actually push the Hong Kong government to do something that can truly help the poor and needed instead of being busy on buying votes?

I would like to see the HK government to put those cash to do something that can actually benefit the poor in a long run.

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-2-23 16:03

你有無睇到田二少之前做果場show㗎？對赤貧嘅人來講，有得派＄10k簡直係天文數字啦～籠屋月租千幾蚊，淨係用來住已經可以唔需要擔心成年嘅床租。咁樣算唔算係解決一個好大嘅問題呀，契弟？

政黨去追政府做野，你以為無咩？最低工資講咗咁多年，到今時今日個衰政府都淨係肯推＄28一個鐘，而且仲要係俾各界鏟爆先至有。本來有啲同你一樣嘅賤種只係話＄20個鐘，而政府係傾向＄24個鐘㗎咋！你咪撚扮傻仔、詐唔知先得㗎？

Program你以為無搞咩？政府推個副學士出來，但有係亂七八糟，啲學位連自己政府部門都唔承認佢嘅學術資格。學生就俾你呃咗搞到周身債喇，但又有用咩？最有名嘅再培育計劃就淨係得家務助理同看更，幫屁到人呀？

我枉你仲夠膽講easing their burdens on housing, transportation。你個仆街政府儲備就多多，但政策就照樣無敵偏袒大地產商。公屋又唔肯起、地鐵、巴士、電力公司年年賺錢就年年加價，但又偏偏唔阻止。過海隧道亦一樣，不斷迫害廣大市民。你係咁多錢就收購返啲巴士公司同過海隧道啦～人地琛圳都買起咗條原本係私人嘅隧道來為民解困，等市民唔使捱貴隧道費喇～你香港政府食屎啦～

最能夠有效地幫助香港所有階層嘅就係全面實行雙普選同廢除功能組別。咁樣做嘅話，官員同特首都要對市民負責，如果唔係就只能夠俾人叮走。偏偏阿爺同保皇黨就唔肯，所以啲廢柴垃圾官先至能夠完全無能，卻依然保住頭上嘅烏紗！毓民咁耐以來一直都係做緊呢啲野，你講到自己咁撚偉大，我又唔見你有半分支持？

講就凶狠，做你就碌撚！一日淨係識得保皇、為特衰政府護短同舔阿爺屎眼！去食屎啦你！

-力

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-2-23 16:16

回復 Lik

Lik, can you tell me how much the HKD 10,000 can change the situation of the poor? If th ...
rockypath 發表於 2011-2-23 15:09

Oh, and I should add that once again, you have avoided the questions I was asking you in post #9. Here they are again:

Given HK's already low tax rate, how would further lowering taxes or increasing tax exemption help the poor? The poor already doesn't have to pay any income taxes. When they are already paying nothing, how does giving them higher exemption amounts help? How?

I also see you purposely avoiding the topic of the SAR government putting money into 強積金. Please enlighten me with your infinite economics knowledge on who that move is helpful to the HK general public. It is a well-known and undisputed fact that management fees for 強積金 is way high, and that most people have lost money on the "investment". Now, let me ask you this -- who makes money on having higher 強積金 amounts? The investment firms, or regular Joe? Why is the SAR government willing to transfer this benefit to investment firms, but not to the citizens of HK? Why? A lot of people could make good use of this $6k right now, not wait until they are 65. When they can't even survive at this moment, what good does that $6k when the government tells them they'll get it at 65? They might not even make it there.

如果咁樣都唔係涼薄、唔係漠視窮人，咁點先算係呢？

Don't think I didn't notice.

-Lik

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-2-23 16:17

你有無睇到田二少之前做果場show㗎？對赤貧嘅人來講，有得派＄10k簡直係天文數字啦～籠屋月租千幾蚊，淨係 ...
Lik 發表於 2011-2-23 16:03

幫人給籠屋租金就是你的幫人目標？這就是解決問題的根源？真膚淺。幸行香港不是被你們這幫人掌權。

Don’t try to shift the focus to political issues, just stick to this topic. Do you dare to point out which point of what I said is not correct or reasonable? I wait for you Lik if you have the gut to do so.

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-2-23 16:22

When most of families can only find a low-pay job due to the limitation of their work skills. The problem of poverty will not be improved and it can get worse. $10,000 will not help them get out of the situation.
rockypath 發表於 2011-2-23 15:09

And, I should add that at this point, it is pointless for you to even ask how these people could be helped out of poverty because they've reached a point of barely being able to survive. At this point, their situations have deteriorated to the point where you need to save them from dying first. After that you look for ways to get them out of poverty.

It's no different than how a gravely sick person is in need of immediate medical attention to keep him from dying. He doesn't need any advice on how to live a healthy lifestyle right now, but that is precisely what you are preaching.

Idiot~

-Lik

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-2-23 16:30

本帖最後由 Lik 於 2011-2-23 16:36 編輯

幫人給籠屋租金就是你的幫人目標？這就是解決問題的根源？真膚淺。幸行香港不是被你們這幫人掌權。

Don ...
rockypath 發表於 2011-2-23 16:17

As expected, no answer from you at all.

Watch/Read this piece as well la:

[youtube]O7Nehi0Viio[/youtube]

是旦台係官台，所以都已經就住來 diu，但係咪又一樣勁插你個預算案？簡直係一pat不知所謂嘅臭屎。仲要講埋啲咩「政府有錢就等於市民有錢」...

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-2-23 16:32

抗通脹乏力基層叫苦　全城喊打曾俊華

政府庫房嚴重「水浸」，上年度財政盈餘遠超預期高達 713億元，累積儲備更近 6,000億元，但財政司司長曾俊華發表下年度預算案時提出的紓困措施卻全不到位：基層市民叫苦連天，不滿重彈舊調的措施未能協助抗通脹，中產納稅一族更怒火中燒，炮轟政府坐擁豐厚盈餘卻拒絕直接退稅，政黨及學者指斥曾俊華抱着「看守政府」心態，炮製如此保守預算案只是「與民為敵，全城喊打」。

「長毛」梁國雄昨日向財政司司長曾俊華（左）掟苦瓜，諷刺預算案未能紓解民困。立法會保安人員伸手擋着苦瓜。

曾俊華任內第四份、即明年中任期完結前「尾二」一份預算案以抗通脹為主調，他宣讀預算案之初便強調，下年度由內部衍生抑或外來輸入的通脹壓力都會增加，應對通脹是政府重要工作，因此提出多項一次性紓困措施，協助基層市民抗通脹。不過，大部份措施卻已在去年預算案提出，包括代繳兩個月公屋租金、寬免差餉以及提供電費補貼等；注資一億元到食物銀行及提高醫療券金額至 500元亦非新猷。

中產：我會第一個上街

這份特首曾蔭權口中「深思熟慮和回應社會需要」的預算案，卻被基層組織炮轟內裏舊招數未能協助市民應對新來臨的通脹問題，社區組織協會主任何喜華直斥預算案「扶貧乏力，花費無度」，指摘坐擁龐大盈餘的政府卻對基層支援「杯水車薪」，預告民怨隨時「爆炸」。

預算案未獲基層歡心，更惹起中產納稅族怒吼，因為預算案雖然提高供養子女及父母免稅額 20%，並動用 240億元，不設入息上限地向強積金戶口注資 6,000元，卻未有提出中產最希望得到的退稅措施。

由於政府本年度盈餘高達 713億，遠高於去年預計的 252億赤字，中產難免對政府做守財奴而拒令中產受惠怨氣咗天，曾俊華昨天在記者會多次被問及為何拒絕退稅，但他僅重申政府推出的措施全面並有針對性，衡量了個別措施的影響，尤其不可刺激通脹，並辯稱過往預算案曾經提出，也不代表每一次都要退稅。

政府拒絕退稅辣㷫中產，中產人士紛紛在討論區留言狂插曾俊華，有網民怒斥「中產俾人踩到上心口，稅就一定要交，福利就一定冇！」另有人聲言「有遊行我第一個上街呀，唔發火當我哋係水魚病貓！」科技大學經濟系主任雷鼎鳴加入聲討行列，反駁政府怕退稅會觸發通脹是「講唔通，無證據，求其噏」，力撐納稅人希望政府「回水」是合理要求。

立法會各大政黨毫不留情批評預算案，民建聯及工聯會不滿預算案協助基層及中產不足，自由黨主席劉健儀不滿「好多措施都係蜻蜓點水式應酬大家。」泛民主派也不收貨，民主黨主席何俊仁矛頭直指曾俊華：「佢有龐大盈餘但只做小修小補，明顯係半退休心態，看守政府所為。」公民黨黨魁梁家傑也諷指「估唔到特區咁快變成看守政府」。

「政府有錢等於市民有錢」社民連狠批曾俊華「做一日和尚敲一日鐘」；職工盟李卓人更指昨天收到來自基層以至中產人士來電，各自控訴未能受惠於預算案，批評當局「與民為敵」，「官更富，民更窮，難免會全城喊打」。理大社會政策研究中心主任鍾劍華形容今次是回歸以來最令人失望的預算案，批評政府坐擁巨額盈餘卻仍只採取過去的紓困方式，完全是看守政府作為。

受到全城圍攻的曾俊華昨天在記者會被問及是否一如政黨所言，抱着「 Hea住做」的看守政府心態時，以一句「如果係咁嘅話，我從來未見過一個咁進取嘅看守政府」嚴厲反駁，並否認是「孤寒財主」，更強辯稱：「其實政府嘅錢亦係大家嘅錢；如果政府有錢嘅話，當然亦等於市民有錢，如果市民有錢亦等於整個政府都係有錢。」

港大民調　評分創新低財爺的初步民意成績表亦引證政黨、學者的說法。 Now新聞台委託香港大學民意研究計劃進行的民意調查顯示，曾俊華這份預算案評分是上任以來最低，只有 51.5分，較去年的 60.8下跌近 9分，其民望也應聲大跌，只有 52.4分，較 2月份調查大跌 3分。

市民一肚氣

《中產失望》
陳小姐：「本身都係中產，覺得退稅係好過派錢，派錢係一次性，退稅就以個人需要同比例退，係公平嘅。冇得退我好失望。」

《偏離現實》
李先生：「預算案同現實脫節，肯定好多人嘈。你儲咁多錢嚟『打仗』冇用 o架，假如十年都唔打，咪儲到個山越嚟越高囉！」

《只顧徵稅》
潘先生：「個預算案就係離譜囉，淨係識收（稅），唔識用。家通脹咁犀利，班基層係捱得好辛苦 o架嘛！」

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-2-23 16:36

本帖最後由 rockypath 於 2011-2-23 16:38 編輯

Oh, and I should add that once again, you have avoided the questions I was asking you in post #9. H ...
Lik 發表於 2011-2-23 16:16

Lik, since you don't have the ability to understand what I said, I say it again in a different way so that you an idiot can understand (hopefully).

This is my direct answer to you question - “The poor already doesn't have to pay any income taxes. When they are already paying nothing, how does giving them higher exemption amounts help? How?”

First, increasing tax exemption amount can give a break to people who work and encourage the supply of labour force. That will be a plus to the economy.

Second, why some people are living under the poverty line? Isn’t it because they cannot find a better job due to their lack of competitive strengths in the labour market and lack of opportunities for them in the economy? What the government can do is to help them to improve their work skills and create more opportunities for them. The increase tax exemption might not have a direct benefit to them, giving out money is not the way to help them be more competitive in the labour market either.

Third, the government should have a systematic plan to use the surplus to easy their financial burdens (i.e. housing, transportation, education and health, etc). How would you know how those families will spend their cash bonus? They can easily spend the money on a nice meal, vocation, cloth or anything else. How would that help them change the situation they are in?

The government has certainly not done its part and neither the political parties. This is my position.

Brainless idiot, have I made myself clear enough?

作者: mcjohnjohn 時間: 2011-2-23 18:10

財政預算案, 無論搞成點, 都會有人唔like 架喇.

小弟覺得:
1) 公屋免租兩個月 - 幾好丫
2) 綜緩 & 生果金+1個月 - 幾好丫
3) 免差餉 - 幾好丫
4) 補貼電費 - 幾好丫
5) 供養父母&子女免稅額 - 幾好丫

其實有好多人, 真係身在福中不知福. 有d 所謂中產, 成日話自己交最多稅, 但受惠最少. 大佬, 好人好者仲乜要人接濟, 同埋施比受係更有福呀.

我希望可以幫多d 基層市民就好, 中產其實自己應該可以照顧到自己, 駛乜鬼理咁多wor.

-- 中產MJJ

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-2-23 22:45

Lik, since you don't have the ability to understand what I said, I say it again in a different way ...
rockypath 發表於 2011-2-23 16:36

你條撚樣做埋咁多陰質事，睇吓你幾時血管閉塞、心臟病發、就來死得嘅時候，然後我叫醫生唔使做急救，只係同你講耶穌、教你點樣先至叫做 healthy lifestyle 咁就得啦？呢個咪就係你所講嘅唔使派錢，乜Q野都唔做嘅方案囉！

同埋唔好唔記得，呢個守財、守舊、看守政府坐擁住巨大儲備，但連少少錢都唔肯使落香港人身上！

-力

作者: Prelude 時間: 2011-2-23 23:23

Many people like to bark anyways.
If the government gives out money, these exact people will say government is stupid, only use money to buy support and ignore about inflation problem caused by these actions.

No matter what the government do, these people will bark.
This 財政預算案 might not be the best, it's far from the worst.

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-2-24 00:03

Many people like to bark anyways.
If the government gives out money, these exact people will say gov ...
Prelude 發表於 2011-2-23 23:23

無錯，有啲人的確會係又吠、唔係又吠。但唔該你條盲丙擘大隻眼睇清楚啲，今次鬍鬚曾呢個預算案，學者又鬧佢、窮人又鬧佢、中產又鬧佢、各個政黨（包括保皇派嘅民賤聯同工聯會）都一齊勁插佢。當全世界都齊齊咁來包抄插佢呢個預算案嘅時候，你係咪好應該問吓自己，呢個財政預算案係咪真係無問題、唔需要diu呢？

不過你繼續吠啦～無人咗止你嘅。

力

作者: peter236 時間: 2011-2-24 00:12

無錯，有啲人的確會係又吠、唔係又吠。但唔該你條盲丙擘大隻眼睇清楚啲，今次鬍鬚曾呢個預算案，學者又鬧 ...
Lik 發表於 2011-2-24 00:03

If you know you are a dog which is 係又吠、唔係又吠, then you should just STFU la.

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-2-24 00:31

If you know you are a dog which is 係又吠、唔係又吠, then you should just STFU la.
peter236 發表於 2011-2-24 00:12

我知道你係一日都爭住舔住阿爺屎眼果條賤狗。家吓吠完就快啲同我larn返去你主子嘅腳下，繼續做佢果條門口狗啦～

-力

作者: rockypath 時間: 2011-2-24 02:33

你條撚樣做埋咁多陰質事，睇吓你幾時血管閉塞、心臟病發、就來死得嘅時候，然後我叫醫生唔使做急救，只係 ...
Lik 發表於 2011-2-23 22:45

Can I ask you – under what kind of situation a government would or should give out cash? In my opinion, there are two kind of situations a government would do this.

1) It needs to buy vote and support from its people;

2) The economy is slow and it needs to stimulate the economy by encouraging consumer spending. Giving out cashing directly to the hands of citizen is an effective way to encourage spending and increase business activities.

One of the reasons people ask for cash is they want these cash from the government to fight inflation. Do you agree? Tell us your own opinion.

Lik , I would wait for your answer.

作者: MoiRhapsody 時間: 2011-2-24 04:33

if only people who are short-sighted and lack of economic knowledge would be a supporter for giving out cash,咁只有白痴政府先會守撚住2萬幾億儲備。
買撚晒三隧，港鐵同領匯都唔成問題呢啲柒頭皮乜撚都唔敢做。

作者: Catpiano 時間: 2011-2-24 08:09

買撚晒三隧...
MoiRhapsody 發表於 2011-2-24 04:33

Good idea wor .. $20 vs $45 (can't even remember) is too big of different ..

Red Tunnel jam all the time .. ma fan!

作者: masterbear 時間: 2011-2-24 10:13

抗通脹乏力基層叫苦　全城喊打曾俊華

政府庫房嚴重「水浸」，上年度財政盈餘遠超預期高達 713億元，累積儲 ...
Lik 發表於 2011-2-23 16:32

Hey EASON! Just found out "長毛" is your super fans! Your record just released and "長毛" do u a favour for your new song

作者: tapioca 時間: 2011-2-24 11:49

It's funny they don't talk about alcohol tax at all, while it used to go with tobacco tax. I guess most of them (rich people and 高官) are wine lovers.

作者: peter236 時間: 2011-2-24 12:12

It's funny they don't talk about alcohol tax at all, while it used to go with tobacco tax. I guess m ...
tapioca 發表於 2011-2-24 11:49

Hong Kong has overtaken New York as the largest wine auction center in the world.

作者: Prelude 時間: 2011-2-24 14:56

Giving out money during high inflation is a bad bad idea.

But they could do more than this.

作者: Lik 時間: 2011-2-25 10:39

其實我響 post #2已經基本上講晒今次份財政預算案有幾不濟，但我想再講吓政府dum＄6000入強積金呢個問題。

所謂嘅派錢：注＄6000入佢地嘅強積金戶口。香港人真係要再一次咁多謝你呀！我今日已經窮到山窮水盡，就來連飯都無得開，但係強積金就要65歲先有得攞。我未夠65已經死Q咗啦？再者，香港強積金嘅管理費係全世界嘅基金之中最高嘅一群，而自強積金實施已來，絕大部份嘅人嘅強積金都係蝕錢嘅。但你特衰政府卻偏偏要繼續泵多啲錢入去，咁唔係益基金公司同大鱷，仲可以係啲乜？
Lik 發表於 2011-2-23 10:47

查過吓資料，香港港啲變態強積金管理費高達每年2％，而且自強積金成立已來，大部份人都係蝕錢，賺嘅只係班基金經理同大銀行（尤其係匯豐）。撇開特衰政府今次遠水不能救近火，強積金不能救民生唔講，財爺大洒240億（港紙）落強積金果度，保守估計最少有24億落咗啲基金公司同大銀行個袋。而匯豐一家就獨佔咗大約3成嘅強積金市場，亦即係財爺變相開倉，輸送咗7億幾嘅公帑俾匯豐，而小市民要65歲先有得攞呢＄6000。我地唔好講班後生，就算係一個40歲嘅中佬都要25年之後先至有得動用呢筆錢。但＄6000每年要首先輸咗2％俾銀行／基金公司，再加埋25年嘅通脹，佢實收仲會有幾多？

你鬍鬚曾話今次財政預算要保民生、抗通脹。但你係咁送錢俾大財團同最有錢嘅基金佬，而小市民就一個崩都攞唔到。你鬍鬚曾咁做咪只係變相令貧富懸殊繼續加劇？物價因為外來因素飛升（之前講過過中嘅原因，依家唔再講），但你抑壓樓價嘅事唔做；港元（因同美金掛勾）而貶值你又唔脫聯繫匯率；庫房水浸又唔做啲可以減輕市民負擔嘅事（收購三條過海隧道、國有化巴士公司、買起領匯等等），咁你仲講乜撚野保民生、抗乜撚野通脹？

叫你派錢就係等啲小市民最少都有多少彈藥來保住自己嘅民生、抗吓出面嘅通脹。其實講真，我絕對相信港府如果夠薑買起三條隧道、國有化巴士公司，淨係呢度已經可以大減市民嘅交通費同商戶嘅運輸費用。再買起埋領匯嘅話仲可以令少商戶有返啲生存空間。但你個特衰政府就保守同看守到不得了，對民間一無所知，害死香港同香港人。成班狗官真係唔死都無用！

-力

作者: peter236 時間: 2011-2-25 12:31

其實我響 post #2已經基本上講晒今次份財政預算案有幾不濟，但我想再講吓政府dum＄6000入強積金呢個問題。
...
叫你派錢就係等啲小市民最少都有多少彈藥來保住自己嘅民生、抗吓出面嘅通脹。其實講真，我絕對相信港府如果夠薑買起三條隧道、國有化巴士公司，淨係呢度已經可以大減市民嘅交通費同商戶嘅運輸費用。再買起埋領匯嘅話仲可以令少商戶有返啲生存空間。但你個特衰政府就保守同看守到不得了，對民間一無所知，害死香港同香港人。成班狗官真係唔死都無用！
Lik 發表於 2011-2-25 10:39

Hong Kong government will not buy the tunnels and the bus companies. Why don't you say they should buy the banks, telecom companies supermarkets and all the restaurants?

Just nonsense crap from you again.

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2011-2-25 13:37

本帖最後由 lo_pak 於 2011-2-25 13:44 編輯

回復 32# peter236

I think buying back the ownership of those 3 cross-harbour is feasible (providing the purchase price is reasonable) and letting management privatized. This way not only lower the cost pressure of other public transits but also maintains a stable profit margin. It's just politically risky... It's quite a win-win-win condition between the present owner, the government and the public.

BTW, IMO I don't like the idea of privatization on major traffic route like bridges, highways or tunnels... That should be the asset belong to all the general public.

作者: peter236 時間: 2011-2-25 13:49

According to Mr Lik, HK government should buy not only the bus companies.
Why not buy the mini bus companies, tram, taxi companies as well?

作者: lo_pak 時間: 2011-2-25 14:12

回復 34# peter236

For public transit it's difficult... In history, government meant to be a poor operator when the labour and department sizes are large...

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