"
le
11
too rapidly. Those earning less than the average wage,
or contributing for less than 40 years,
from their compulsory lifetime
could expect
saving s a retirement
tance threshold.
income below the public Assistan
XT.
And let us be clear what we mean by compulsory
savings. We mean that employers would be forced to set
up
retirement schemes. Employees would be forced to
join, and to contribute for their entire working lives.
Contributions would have to remain in tact until
retirement. Retiring workers would be forced to invest
their lifetime
saving s in approved ways.
believe that such extensive
the financial affairs of so
practice be popular.
I do not
government interference in
many individuals would in
·
18.
Those who argue that we should aim for a lesser
goal, for example simply to ensure for everyone som e
sort of nest-egg which will provide psychological rather
than true practical benefit, merely destroy the case for
compulsion; does it really make sense to
to incur so many
disadvantages for such a tenuous advantage? Alternatively,
SC Mr. TAM Yiu-chung and other supporters of the CPF have argued that the
scheme could be improved by a government subsidy to the contributions
of the lower-paid. In fact they are proposing that CPF should be
used as a rather complicated device for channelling welfare payment
to the lower-paid. It is difficult to see what advantage this would
have over our present system of allowances get the people's actual needs.
: