Saturday, February 21, 2009
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Job Credits - stimulative package Singapore style
no one quarrels with dipping into Singapore reserve...extraordinary/unprecedented times require extraordinary measures...Obama said it, Kevin Rudd said it, but I guess no plagiarism there...
not totally bought-in on whether job credits is innovative...something is innovative if it is a new way to solve a problem...job credits is new thinking no doubt just not sure if it solves the problem...NTUC is lately adamant against CPF cut...Lim Boon Heng earlier said it is across the board and penalise workers in companies that do well despite recession...Lim Swee Say said when rebutting Low Thia Khiang "does WP want Job Credits or 9% CPF cuts"...Low is seasoned enough to say he don't want both..haha...job credits is labelled as "smart bomb"...not quite sure why it is smart bomb when it is also across the board for all S'pore and PR workers with CPF account? if the purpose is to lower costs for employers (supposedly to temporarily keep jobs but as many have said why would employer pay $7500 and wait 3 months to get back $900 credit if he don't need the workers?), so what is the difference as far as employers is concerned whether it is 9% CPF cut or job credits? the only difference is whether the employers' savings come from $4.5b job credits or from workers CPF...but if we cut workers CPF then the $4.5b can be spent in a targetted way for specific group of workers or industries or income level, so higher income workers above $4.5k/month will have effective pay cut (from CPF cut but better than lose job) but then the $4.5b pool from reserves can be more targeted to help either certain low income group (workfare etc) or certain targeted industries...why is job credit a smart bomb when it is "one size fits all"? taxpayers don't want to subsidize already profitable companies nor companies which will fail anyway after getting "temporary" job credit bailouts for 1 year?
of course there could be other reasons for not touching CPF-maybe it will trigger property loans repayment default etc...but those reasons maybe should be investigated and communicated...maybe messy to have temporary 1 year 9% CPF cut vs one-off job credit scheme (hmm..not sure about that)...maybe part of job credits are for government linked agencies so go back to consolidated accounts anyway but unlikely that is big % of $4.5b?
though many brilliant minds (scholars) have gone into job credits and government as always have studied thoroughly before introducing an idea, still no harm to listen whether WP or PAP or others if there are other views, considerations, solution, or at least revisit issue and explain better...
not totally bought-in on whether job credits is innovative...something is innovative if it is a new way to solve a problem...job credits is new thinking no doubt just not sure if it solves the problem...NTUC is lately adamant against CPF cut...Lim Boon Heng earlier said it is across the board and penalise workers in companies that do well despite recession...Lim Swee Say said when rebutting Low Thia Khiang "does WP want Job Credits or 9% CPF cuts"...Low is seasoned enough to say he don't want both..haha...job credits is labelled as "smart bomb"...not quite sure why it is smart bomb when it is also across the board for all S'pore and PR workers with CPF account? if the purpose is to lower costs for employers (supposedly to temporarily keep jobs but as many have said why would employer pay $7500 and wait 3 months to get back $900 credit if he don't need the workers?), so what is the difference as far as employers is concerned whether it is 9% CPF cut or job credits? the only difference is whether the employers' savings come from $4.5b job credits or from workers CPF...but if we cut workers CPF then the $4.5b can be spent in a targetted way for specific group of workers or industries or income level, so higher income workers above $4.5k/month will have effective pay cut (from CPF cut but better than lose job) but then the $4.5b pool from reserves can be more targeted to help either certain low income group (workfare etc) or certain targeted industries...why is job credit a smart bomb when it is "one size fits all"? taxpayers don't want to subsidize already profitable companies nor companies which will fail anyway after getting "temporary" job credit bailouts for 1 year?
of course there could be other reasons for not touching CPF-maybe it will trigger property loans repayment default etc...but those reasons maybe should be investigated and communicated...maybe messy to have temporary 1 year 9% CPF cut vs one-off job credit scheme (hmm..not sure about that)...maybe part of job credits are for government linked agencies so go back to consolidated accounts anyway but unlikely that is big % of $4.5b?
though many brilliant minds (scholars) have gone into job credits and government as always have studied thoroughly before introducing an idea, still no harm to listen whether WP or PAP or others if there are other views, considerations, solution, or at least revisit issue and explain better...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Internet sensation
From the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade, he turned to traders and said: "How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?" The traders booed that notion, and Santelli said: "President Obama, are you listening?"In his report on CNBC, Santelli said responsible homeowners would end up subsidizing other people's bad behavior.
=====
below my take on Rick Santelli's rant..
....it is very onerous and punishing to expect decent responsible hardworking americans setting out a new home and family completely within their means in 2006 or 2007 (say monthly repayment below 31% of household income)...
home prices may have fallen 30% to 50% because an irresponsible neighbour defaulted and his property foreclosed at fire sale price and even hardworking folks perfectly able to pay the mortgage may default (rational default)...
who is to blame?..cnbc anchors can repeat lopsided sensationalized comments about socializing losses and privatizing gains when the housing plan is to help 7million of their responsible fellow citizens caught in this global collapse and yet they are quite happy to attack Obama when he criticized the $18billion Wall Street bonuses as the "height of irresponsibility" and "guys please show some restraints"...so some segment of the press are quite happy with privatizing gains and socializing losses when the $18b bonuses go to the powerful Wall Street boys that caused or allowed the collapse under their watch (their greed causing miseries to hundreds of millions around the world) but not so happy when it goes to 7million of their fellow americans...I guess that is the "height of irresponsible reporting"...
still Obama administration has lost the initial spin and in a free debate it is necessary to hear all sides...so it is important to address the real concern of the american people about not subsidizing the unworthy (Wall Street fat cats or irresponsible Main Street next door neighbour..and don't worry about restricting bonuses - there are lots of perfectly decent hardworking Wall Street folks waiting to contribute once the fat cat culture is gone..)...but ignore the rants and not add any credit to it...