2008年10月18日 星期六
生果金
曾蔭權剛發表的施政報告,提議經資產審查後給長者增加援助金額,結果得不到掌聲反而捱罵。
生果金正式名稱叫「高齡津貼」。當年香港沒有退休金制度,各方人士催促政府設立老人保障制度,政府敷敷衍衍地推出了不問資產人人皆有的高齡津貼,社會人仕馬上噓聲四起,數百元怎夠生活,於是有高官走出來解說這些錢並不是用來解困,是政府向老人家表示的一點敬意,就像帶籃生果去探訪老人家一樣。從此大家就抓住這句話,高齡津貼就變成生果金,不肯加生果金就等如不敬老,如果取消生果金就更加是冷血無良。
其實今年年頭,財政司接受訪問時已經表示:加生果金對那些富裕的老人家來說只是錦上添花,不如實際點,通過資產審查,給真正有需要的長者雪中送炭。九月政府才發放一筆過額外兩個月生果金,以金錢換取時間,一方面給長者暫時紓窮解困,一方面希望年底能完成檢討援助長者計畫,好等將來有一個比生果金更有效長遠的援助。說得頭頭是道,卻得不到支持,電視上就看到有個老男人坐在寬敞客廳裏說,他活了一把年紀,政府拿$1000來「敬」他是應份的,為何要查他的身家。他說得一臉自然。
為甚麼會有老人家要靠生果金過日子,而不去拿綜援呢?因為拿綜援的資產上限是三萬四,老人家幾乎是不可能找到工作,如果沒有人供養而紅簿仔又有十萬八萬,就只得靠生果金或到街上執紙皮撿瓶罐維持生計,生果金如果可以多$300就等如生活費多了42%。
本來體恤這羣老人家,加到$1000甚至$2000也不算甚麼,問題是惹來一堆人乘機騎劫這羣老人家也來摻一腳,於是,本來不愁衣食的都突然窮起來,同聲同氣的爭取多$300來救命。又於是,一提到要資產審查,就改口說不是需要援助,只是要求政府更加敬老。
靠生果金過日子的長者固然需要加生果金來吊命,不愁衣食的長者也非常樂意每月多些生果金,家有兩老的當然不介意老人家多些零用錢甚至可以幫補家計。就算不希罕生果金的人,恐怕也無必要大聲疾呼地反對區區的幾百元。
對政府來說,順應民意拍板加$300是最省時方便,仍然堅持要檢討生果金制度及加入資產審查,是審慎負責的決定,畢竟,過兩年,又會有人要求$2000或$3000才算敬老。當年就是開了生果金的頭,引至今天的殘局。
訂閱:
張貼留言 (Atom)
I'm with you on this. I do believe that if they would show that clip where you said 老男人坐在寬敞客廳裏說,他活了一把年紀,政府拿 $1000 來「敬他」是應份的,為何要查他的身 家, the public will turn against this guy, and all others like him.
回覆刪除I also agree with you that most taxpayers would not mind giving the truly needy elderly even more than $1,000. How about a more liberal means test, like anyone with assets under $500,000 (not counting their home) getting $1,000, and anyone with assets under $250,000 getting $2,000? But for those with more than $500k, just let them stay at $705 and $625.
[版主回覆10/18/2008 21:34:00]$1000 跟 $700 差不了多少,就算有人貪着數也只不過每月貪多 $300 ,有 100 歲命也只可以多拿十萬,所以大家都覺得何必跟老人家計較,而且資產審查是需要成本的,為的就是 $300 ?
其實生果金開了頭就沒辦法,只好由它繼續,窮的富的都照拿吧。應該另外特設一個長者綜援金給有需要的老人家,要申請要證明要調查,這是拿任何援助的正常程序,跟「敬老」無關。但是, Teacher ,資產審查一定要計算物業在內,總不能住 3000 呎大屋也照樣比錢吧。隱藏銀行存款較容易,物業轉移就要冒點風險。
重重關卡是必要的,有人派錢,就會惹來一幫人搶錢。替長者爭取福利的梁智鴻以前也經常罵政府不肯加生果金,最近轉了口風,說錢應該花在最有需要的人仕身上。
Isis: I just read this from the SCMP:
回覆刪除A single person's assets are capped at HK$169,000 and his income at HK$5,910 a month. For a married couple, their assets cannot exceed HK$254,000 and their income should not exceed HK$9,740 .
So, the current Fruit Money means test is not as tough as the one for 綜援 . And even an idiot like Donald Tsang wouldn't dream of making it tougher at the $1,000 level.
[版主回覆10/18/2008 21:43:00]Teacher ,你上面所說的 current Fruit Money means test 是指「普通高齡津貼」, 65-69 歲,合資格的就可以每月領取 $625 。 $705 是「高額高齡津貼」,無須 means test ,年滿 70 就可領取。
現在政府願意通過資產審查,發放 $1000或 更多的錢。但是,好多 老人家反對,他們要爭取的是無須資產審查的 $1000。
60 歲以上的單身長者綜援金有 $2,475 ,所以有點資產的長者應該不會超過 $2000 甚至 $1500 ,否則,拿綜援的會走出來抗議說不公平。
我覺得老人家比多D都合理,
回覆刪除反而果D一家幾口,有工作能力又唔去自力更生,只靠公援過活的家庭..就要 cut 佢哋啦 !
睇見果D拎綜援,仲話唔夠既人就把火...成日去旅行,有D仲返大陸包二奶 !
[版主回覆10/18/2008 21:46:00]其實呢,綜援金只可以餓你唔死架咋,成日去旅行同包二奶嗰啲應該係隱瞞 咗 收入,即係呃綜援,又或者攞 晒全家 嘅 綜援金 自己 fing 。
嘩, 打好多字喎!
回覆刪除我覺得, 一係唔加, 加就唔好攪乜野資產審查, 免得又勞文, 又傷財(要額外資源去做審查)
[版主回覆10/18/2008 21:55:00]如果加都唔資產審查就會出事架啦,已經有人要求政府每年跟通漲加生果金,將來條數會好襟計。
The reason I want to exclude owner-occupied property is because the limit has to be so much higher otherwise, thus may eventually cause this 高齡津貼 program to lose political support. But I tend to agree with you that there're problems either way, especially with elderly folks with children who could shelter their assets, property or cash, with them.
回覆刪除Isis: I would love to see some of those non-poor 老人家 who are opposed to the means test come out and argue their case. The more the public see them, the more likely they'll turn against them, and in favor of a means test for the increased amount of $1,000.
回覆刪除[版主回覆10/18/2008 23:47:00]Teacher ,你睇唔睇中文台架?我就係睇得多呢啲討論社會時事嘅節目,見到啲狐狸尾巴現晒出黎。本來個個話靠雞碎咁多生果金日子過得好悽涼,叫政府加到 $1000 ,但政府一話要資產審查啫,啲人就即刻轉軚話生果金係「敬老」唔係「養老」,冇理由要審查喎,仲話要 $1000 先算「敬老」。
Isis: I learnt a lot from this article since I don't know why people setting up Fruit Money system in HK. I do agree with you that we should let the Fruit Money keeping to exist at this moment. Although fruit money used to make as 敬意,some elderly are really depends on that. However, I disagree to increase to $1000, except they can pass certain income and asset investigation. I would perfer to spend money on those needy elderly instead.
回覆刪除[版主回覆10/19/2008 00:06:00]係呀,我都認為攞政府福利係應該提出證明, 冇理由你要就比, 唔比就等於唔尊重,每次 啲官員 比人用歪理質問就口震震唔識答,唉。
The reason given by Donald not to raise the amount is valid. He could have done it easily but he donot burden the taxpayer that much. Apparently there will be a drastic increase of the number of OLD people in the next 2x years and it would create a huge burden to the government. However, I agree that the means test should be imposed if the amount was to be raised to $1000.
回覆刪除[版主回覆10/20/2008 22:54:00]就算沒有人口老化問題,錢也應該留給有需要的人。
I have been watching Chinese channels a lot more this year than 6 years ago. Anyway, if those people are already so openly greedy and 狐狸尾巴現出, then the public will turn against them by the time 財爺 delivers his budget next year.
回覆刪除On the other hand, a more pessimistic note, maybe people like Christine, PM, you, LC and me are a small minority in HK, and the majority are either greedy or stupid or both, thinking that the more our gov't gives money away, the more they'll benefit in the long term.
Hmmm, is my thinking swerving towards a criticism of democracy here, or what? Another blog forming in my head....
[版主回覆10/20/2008 22:56:00]其實,反對的人也不少,只是不會像貪婪的人那樣在鏡頭面前「呱呱叫」 。
Teacher ,你是不是覺得雖有 democracy 但市民水準低的話就……就會像 bad money drives out good 之類, 期待看你的新 blog 。
Tsang talks a full mouth of shit, he asked someone's going to be 60 to retire, but he himself is over 60.
回覆刪除The more he is in the position, the more "唔順眼" he is. The point is we almost don't have any social welfare system, and he's still thinking about cutting them. Great shame
[版主回覆10/20/2008 22:57:00]他有 cut 過福利嗎?我只看到他很慷慨地花錢在門面功夫。
其實政府可唔可以將個提高額的”生果金”另闢一個新名堂,唔同沿用的生果金掛鉤?
回覆刪除[版主回覆10/20/2008 23:01:00]不是不可以,但要錢的人肯罷休嗎,如果要資產審查?
TD needs to adjust his position later and say because of groundswell public demand, he is leaving the current $705 for age 70+ as universal, and means testing only the addition $295. Those age 65-69 who are getting $625 will get $1,000 with the same means test. This will assure those approaching age 70 but have a couple hundered thousand dollars in the bank that they'll get at least the $705. If they continue to demand $1,000, they risk a public backlash.
回覆刪除Yes, Isis, you understand exactly my thoughts on democracy. Just look at the Philippines and India.
[版主回覆10/21/2008 00:33:00]不妨加到 $1200 添,等生果金開飯啲人突然多咗咁多錢自然肯收貨,搭順風車攞着數嘅人就要諗啲比「敬老」跟加好嘅理由喇。不過,我估佢哋到時都係嘈搞社會分化呀,唔尊重老人家呀,傷害了全港老人家的感情咁啦。
I like your idea of 分化- ing the needy from the greedy. $1,200 for the truly needy and $705 for universal 敬老. This is a textbook "divide and conquer" political tactic.
回覆刪除[版主回覆10/22/2008 14:25:00]就 睇 DT 敢 唔 敢企硬喇!
Isis, you're right . The latest cave-in proved that 佢唔敢 企硬, even against the obviously greedy. In just 10 days, no less...., very sad for HK. I hope some journalists would do a study on what kind of diet an old person has to consume $1,000 worth of fruit every month.
回覆刪除I need to watch Chinese TV more to get a better sense of what's going on in this city.
[版主回覆10/25/2008 14:33:00]曾特首搖風擺柳唔係第一次,每次一有人鬧佢就腳軟,所以宜家香港好多惡人無理取鬧,發吓爛喳話唔埋會有着數,唔出聲就乜都冇。
曾特首話「理性嘅政策討論俾整個感性嘅反應蓋過」,所以讓步。一般市民唔理性有乜出奇,但做特首應該好理性架嘛。家陣大家都知道同我地特首講嘢唔駛講道理;講惡就得嘞,下次如果有人要求加乜乜物物金/津貼,恐怕會成籮蕉掟過去。
There was a rally yesterday by the elderly demanding an end to the means testing of those aged 65-69 for their fruit money. The disappointing thing, to me, was that most of my favorite LegCo members were there supporting them.
回覆刪除Another group pushing for a universal retirement scheme is rallying on Nov 16. Lets hope they don't draw more than a hundred or so people.
[版主回覆10/27/2008 18:46:00]今次又 睇吓 駛唔駛掟蕉,如果 DT 又肯妥協 嘅 , 咁就輪到 55-64 歲爭取,因為退休年齡係 55 歲,冇理由 唔「尊敬」埋 佢 哋架,跟住又可以 輪到傷殘人士,得 $1170 咋,會 唔會覺得有 欠 「尊重」呢。
Somebody needs to put some backbone into DT, or this nonsense will get completely out of hand...
回覆刪除