What did a 2011 commentary argue?
A 2011 commentary said one thing affluent societies share is some form of universal retirement protection; Hong Kong, affluent yet leaving non-workers outside MPF, had a gap. Supporters argued affluence shouldn’t leave elderly without support.
What did opponents say?
Fiscal sustainability, ageing, tax-and-contribution hikes — opponents called universal protection easy to start, hard to stop, unaffordable for the treasury.
What should workers do?
Until consensus comes, self-reliance is safest: pick low-fee steady funds and review regularly — start at MPF fund comparison.
Related articles
View allLam calls MPF “unpopular with employees” as offsetting debate looms: can the core fund rebuild trust?
A report from November 2017 captured the speeches at the Global Forum on...
Universal pension backed by 90% of submissions but rejected: scholar warns against forcing a means-tested scheme
In November 2017, a professor emeritus of social work and social...
How Did the Central Policy Unit Study Retirement Protection?
What did the CPU’s 2011 retirement research conclude? July 2011 LegCo...