Endowment scheme to ease high costs without sowing welfare.

• robertteh

  7 Jan 06, 23:31

  If government wants to avoid the pitfall of welfarism, it still can do so without totally denying citizens of some relief in extreme cases. Just define welfare in two parts:-
  
  (1) Relief for Medicare and temporary unemployment.
  
  Allocate 0.5 % (small amount of national reserve which will not result in welfare dependency) of annual tax monies to build up an endowmen fund within 5 years. When such an endowment fund reaches a sustainable sum use the interests to lower costs of medicare due to land and infrastructure charges which government need not charge as these are of one-time nature and have in any event been covered by citizens' taxes.
  
  Define the objective of such relief scheme so that it will not become a welfare - say only to relieve citizens of high costs for period of unemployments up to 3 months to be paid back in 10 years' instalments or contributing of labor to community workfare scheme (construction or child care services etc to cut down dependence on foreign labor if still unemployed after 3 months.
  
  (2) Unemployment assistance.
  
  Plough back 5% of extraordinary earnings (exceptional gains and bonuses) from surpluses invested overseas projects which create employments only to benefit foreigners to a national unemployment endowment fund to help relief within capped quantum those affected by age, disablement, and longer unemployments after failing to secure jobs over 3 months who for physical or other approved reason is unable to serve out his community workfare scheme.
• ndmmxiaomayi

  9 Jan 06, 20:31

  Originally posted by robertteh:

  (2) Unemployment assistance.
  
  Plough back 5% of extraordinary earnings (exceptional gains and bonuses) from surpluses invested overseas projects which create employments only to benefit foreigners to a national unemployment endowment fund to help relief within capped quantum those affected by age, disablement, and longer unemployments after failing to secure jobs over 3 months who for physical or other approved reason is unable to serve out his community workfare scheme.

  Don't understand this part.
• robertteh

  9 Jan 06, 21:22

  Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:

  Don't understand this part.

  Well perhaps I should have explained about this part.
  
  In my view, overseas investments may be highly risky as our government has experienced time and again from Souzhou to Bengalore industrial projects.
  
  Government may not know the cans of worms lying in wait for our unwary eager beavers. What appear good potential under the guise of good presentation may be craps not worth sniffing at to keener evaluaters.
  
  Therefore, our government should be extremely careful and highly professional in "investing citizens' hard-earned monies in overseas projects which incidentally also deprive our of opportunities to create jobs for our own unemployed citizens. Why use our capital and other resources to benefit only the foreigners.."
  
  If we must invest our reserves or surpluses overseas at least be more accountable and transparent e.g. by doing so according to some criteria for such overseas investments.
  
  Such investments of citizens' monies should be made in investments after careful evaluations in good basket of mix that earn assured incomes in AAA or equivalent categories.
  
  In the event of investing reserves in other categories, let the criteria be such that whenever any investments peak in values or realize extraordinary profits or windfalls like on occasions of bonus issues or acquisition buy-outs, do not go on to invest infinitum but transfer the risks to safer basket by returning capitals from more risky basket to less risky ones.
  
  The government no doubt can learn from Warren Buffet by transfering any investments of equity risk to non-equity risks upon realizing extraordinary gains.
  
  In this way citizens' hard earned monies will be kept safe as they will come back to their safer provident funds like the "Unemployment Endowment Fund" or other equivalent like "Rebates on essential government services Fund: which can be used to relieve citizens' high costs of living or cushion off the effects of temporary unemployment.
• ndmmxiaomayi

  9 Jan 06, 22:19

  Originally posted by robertteh:

  Well perhaps I should have explained about this part.
  
  In my view, overseas investments may be highly risky as our government has experienced time and again from Souzhou to Bengalore industrial projects.
  
  Government may not know the cans of worms lying in wait for our unwary eager beavers. What appear good potential under the guise of good presentation may be craps not worth sniffing at to keener evaluaters.
  
  Therefore, our government should be extremely careful and highly professional in "investing citizens' hard-earned monies in overseas projects which incidentally also deprive our of opportunities to create jobs for our own unemployed citizens. Why use our capital and other resources to benefit only the foreigners.."
  
  If we must invest our reserves or surpluses overseas at least be more accountable and transparent e.g. by doing so according to some criteria for such overseas investments.
  
  Such investments of citizens' monies should be made in investments after careful evaluations in good basket of mix that earn assured incomes in AAA or equivalent categories.
  
  In the event of investing reserves in other categories, let the criteria be such that whenever any investments peak in values or realize extraordinary profits or windfalls like on occasions of bonus issues or acquisition buy-outs, do not go on to invest infinitum but transfer the risks to safer basket by returning capitals from more risky basket to less risky ones.
  
  The government no doubt can learn from Warren Buffet by transfering any investments of equity risk to non-equity risks upon realizing extraordinary gains.
  
  In this way citizens' hard earned monies will be kept safe as they will come back to their safer provident funds like the "Unemployment Endowment Fund" or other equivalent like "Rebates on essential government services Fund: which can be used to relieve citizens' high costs of living or cushion off the effects of temporary unemployment.

  I see.
  
  I can't say much about investments as I am not a business students and don't know really know how all these things work.
  
  But once my teacher told me that what seems to be a very good opportunity may not be so. Take China as an example. Although China has the world largest population, if we can sell our products to 10% of their people, we would be rich. However, my teacher says otherwise. It's true that China has the world largest population, but many of them live in the rural areas as well. Those who move out of the countryside to live and work in the city will not be able to afford the products. Thus, we can't say that by selling products to them, we will be rich.
  
  There's also another factor of cost. As labour costs are lower over there, products tend to be cheaper. So, even if 10% of the population buys from you, your profit margins would be lowered.
  
  The last factor is piracy. The piracy laws there are super lax. Anything and everything can be pirated. Profits margin again reduced. In the end, we may end up losing money.
  
  What I think is that the government only see the advantages of China's and India's booming economy, yet never consider these factors. If they decide to invest more money in Singapore, they would have benefitted.