「派糖」兼顧抗通脹 精益求精考智慧 香港

rockypath

Lik and his fellows. This is an article worth your guys' reading.  It is good that it mentioned about Singapore and some economic knowledge (which I had told you) as well.

Lik, you still haven't answered my question about your "nice meal policy" - how would the "economic multiplier effect" benefit and help the poor?

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

「派糖」兼顧抗通脹 精益求精考智慧
[2011-02-24]
Share
  
香港最新《預算案》推出多項回饋措施，力度超過四百億元，當中以注資入市民強積金戶口最大手筆。當局不採用退稅的方式還富於納稅人，解釋是此舉令得益人數大增，同時為免通脹火上加油。然而，對於財爺的設計，香港很多市民坦言不領情。香港通脹威脅未除，香港政府採取「曲線派錢」的做法防患未然時，不妨考慮有沒有其他方法，可以令措施更受市民歡迎。
香港財政司司長曾俊華二十三日公布新一年《預算案》，由於幾個月來大家已經預計港府本財政年度盈餘會超過七百億元，要求「派糖」的呼聲不絕於耳。不算入一些為社會發展作長遠投資的撥款，這份《預算案》幾乎把用過的「派糖」招數盡出，惟獨就是沒有退稅。

不管新招舊招，市民受惠就是好招。但是，近年市民對港府派糖紓困已經習以為常，沒有新招激發「驚喜」效果並非首要，反而當中拒絕退稅，與大多數納稅人的期望出現落差。

退稅比注資強積金較容易博取市民掌聲，原因是大家覺得「有錢過手」，如何運用可以自主，不必被逼儲蓄到退休後，不必受基金管理人賺去一筆。退稅令人感覺良好，部分人會因此增加消費，當通脹肆虐時就會火上加油，按經濟理論，只有通縮或溫和通脹時才適宜退稅。今年新加坡在高通脹時仍然退稅，原因是有加息和貨幣升值作為調控武器，撇開香港受制於聯匯難以主動加息，調高息口同樣會令很多人增加利息支出。
注資強積金戶口代替退稅，可以抵銷通脹副作用，代價卻是彈多讚少。面對批評，港府應研究一套「對沖」機制，日後透過一面退稅一面回收銀根，讓市民開心之餘，兼得避免通脹的效果。

通脹增加生活開支，負利率蠶食市民儲蓄，把錢趕去股市樓市，加熱經濟抬高物價。香港不少退休人士或理財保守的市民，眼巴巴看着放在銀行的辛苦積蓄購買力不斷萎縮。香港《預算案》提出發行派息與通脹掛鈎的債券，為市民提供保值途徑，同時有助香港債市多元化。現時市場利息遠低於通脹，這類「高息」債券等於香港政府變相為市民包底，還幸大手發債成本不高，所得資金有辦法藉投資跑贏存款。
當局發行官債惠民，還可以調節市面閑資，為經濟降溫，間接壓低通脹。香港《預算案》初步構思在下半年發行第一筆五十億元通脹債券，測試市民的接受程度。如果證實受歡迎，港府不妨大幅增發，還可以研究日後如何把退稅與發債掛鈎，設法令市民對還富資金用途多個選擇，錢過手後流回庫房，通脹又不致加溫。

美元及人民幣匯價不轉勢，通脹會維持一段時間，港府要在財政政策上抗擊，就要不斷研究優化措施。除了抗通脹債券，其他建議如交通費穩定基金，意念上都有可取之處，值得為政者反覆推敲。

http://news.singtao.ca/toronto/2011-02-24/editorial1298543037d3024353.html

rockypath

狗屁不通
kingkong123 發表於 2011-2-26 16:59

邊一處唔通？你個屎眼唔通？叫力仔幫你啦。  

rockypath

撚樣，真係想唔爆粗diu柒你都唔得...

全世界都知道，而我亦響 forum 度講咗9億幾次：香港嘅通脹係因為外 ...
Lik 發表於 2011-2-26 18:10

語無倫次的無知仔。真慶倖香港不是掌握在你們這幫不學無術的笨蛋手中。你知道你講的到底是什麼嗎？

正是因為香港的通脹是輸入型通脹，而香港政府可以進行干預和調控的辦法非常有限，政府在制定經濟政策時更要非常謹慎並對最壞情況的出現要有所預防。正是因為香港的通脹是外在因素決定，政府不可能對通脹的程度和嚴重度進行預測和干預，因此更不應該火上澆油。

如果發了錢，通脹沒有增加，自然是皆大歡喜。反之，如果通脹變嚴重，香港是不是可以靠阿力你打救？ 審慎應付是一個負責任的政府應有的態度。

順從民意發錢有多難？我可以講比你多得多的理由去支持發錢。但我相信這不符合香港人（特別是貧困家庭）的最大利益。


有膽識你就回答我的問題 － 以下那個方案更符合香港利益？

（１）        政府利用盈餘建立長期有效計劃去降低貧富懸殊和解決社會貧困問題，針對影響民生的住房交通等有直接影響的問題對貧困家庭提供直接幫助。

（２）        每家每戶各發一筆現金，個人自己修行，自己解決問題。

我等你的答復。

rockypath

我送三個字俾你呢個回覆：假、大、空。

你呢篇廢物回覆有無任何實質嘅提議？好對唔住，無。

1）長期有效 ...
Lik 發表於 2011-2-26 20:46

Idiot Lik. Do you have the brain to understand what I said?

First, just answer me directly. Do you agree with what I said about the concern of inflation? Yes or No. If you do not agree, just tell us the reason why. Be a man and stand up to answer my question.

Second, since the government did not take action on either solution, why did you take “giving out cash” as the only choice instead of supporting the first proposal?

Can you tell me why the first proposal is 遠水難救近火? There are many ways it can deliver an immediate assistance to the poor and needed and have less impact on the risk of inflation. For example, government can use the surplus to provide subsidy or allowance to poor families on housing, transportation, education and health so that the assistance can be delivered to meet the exact needs of those families instead of spending on a NICE MEAL.

You are just a brainless idiot blindly follow your 癲狗教主. Get your own brain, Lik.

rockypath

正因為 派錢係好易
難就難在 點去解釋

[有錢派俾冇需要嘅人 都唔派俾你 有需要嘅人] ...
sheep 發表於 2011-2-27 10:52

As I already questioned - do you guys have the brain to understand what I said?

Didn't I criticize the government did not provide enough and effective assistance to help the poor and needed to get out of the situation they are in?

The only thing I did not agree with you guys is to give out cash instead of providing direct assistance to those families in more direct and effective ways. However, that will requires the government make a bigger commitment than simply giving out cash.

Get it? What an idiot.

How many time do I still need to repeat that?

rockypath

你去同亞洗碗亞嬸講
你要錢  定係要政府叫你去再培訓
等你
讀完個電腦入門
再拎張成績單同學費單
再 ...
sheep 發表於 2011-2-27 11:18

Just read what I said in post #7 first. Idiot.

As I already said, you guys just opened your mouth and blindly BS without reading what other people had said.

rockypath

回復  rockypath


    聽你話
啱啱睇完
真係笑爆嘴
我都餓死咗
你俾咩我都冇用 ...
sheep 發表於 2011-2-27 11:31

(I have to make it in Chinese again since you idiot do not understand English)

你那麼快就餓死？連直接補助都等不及？

如果香港去年庫房虧損，那你不是要“杏加橙”？

rockypath

唔明你講咩
sheep 發表於 2011-2-27 11:37

Don't get it? Ok, I make it in English.

You starve  to death so quickly even cannot wait for the direct subsidy instead of cash to be delivered to your hands?

If Hong Kong government was in red last year, wouldn't your whole family has to meet in heaven (your family will surely starve to death this year).

rockypath

LOL~

For the poor families that are having difficulties in making ends meet, what kind of assistan ...
Lik 發表於 2011-2-27 11:38

Can you tell us why “giving out cash” is a more effective way to provide assistance to the poor than direct and targeted subsidy and allowance?

Don’t be a coward Lik.

rockypath

Do you have no fxxking idea what "having difficulties in making ends meet" mean? It means you are ba ...
Lik 發表於 2011-2-27 12:49

Your arguments just base on “perhaps this and perhaps that”.

First, how would you know how the family use their cash bonus? You are already stupid enough to promote your “nice meal policy”. How would that help them ease their living burdens especially if they spend the money on one-go on a nice meal? In addition, a sudden increase in consumer spending will add the risk of inflation.

Second, direct subsidy will make sure the assistance will directly meet the end needs. In addition, it will be an on-going relief to help the families to deal with their problems.

Third, if the assistance is delivered through subsidy, the government has a way to monitor its effectiveness and is able to make adjustment or improvement in next budget year.

Last, the possibility of some people could be missed out by this method is not a critical point to defeat this method since it can be always improved to minimize this impact. And I believe the impact would be much less than your “nice meal” idea.

Have I shown your stupidity enough?