COMITIAL
18
doing of
or retirement scheme, already goes some way towards this. More might nevertheless be done by means education and persuasion.
If necessary, legislation requiring the establishment of private schemes might be considered, although the Scope and impact of such legislation would require very careful assessment if the economic disadvantages of a centralised and compulsory scheme were to be avoided.
Summary
64.
In drawing together the threads of the above discussion, the following broad themes have emerged:
(a) A CPF would, depending upon the
the amount and period of contribution, provide some degree of retirement provision for those who
who have been in employment, but would not be of significant benefit to those most in need, namely those who have been unable to work, have worked only irregularly or who been on a low wage.
have
(b) Accordingly a CP F would be unlikely to result in a significant reduction in the burd en of claims under existing social security provisions.
contribute over
(c) A CPF would provide a more comprehensive system of retirement provision (for those able to
extended period) without the adverse effect upon labour mobility inherent in provisions linked to length of service with a single employer.
in
(d) The concept of a contributory social security scheme could be said to be accord with a general policy of encouraging self-reliance. It could be argued equally, however, that the compulsory nature of a CP F discourages
self-reliance by removing the individual's freedom of choice in provid ing for his future needs.
(e) A CPF could provide a source of funds to
meet Government's borrowing requirements, but there is no need for such a facility and its existence would be a disadvantage if it created pressure to finance less worthwhile projects.
(f) In certain circumstances,
Government might 'top up' the
CP F or
find itself under pressure to benefits available from a subsidise its operating costs.
to
!
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.