www射-国产免费一级-欧美福利-亚洲成人福利-成人一区在线观看-亚州成人

Why a redistribution policy in Hong Kong is necessary

Updated: 2014-01-29 07:19

By Ho Lok-Sang(HK Edition)

  Print Mail Large Medium  Small 分享按鈕 0

Hong Kong is a market economy, and has been rated as the freest in the world for over two decades by the Heritage Foundation. Being a free economy brings many important advantages, but also comes at a price. The advantages include greater personal freedom and autonomy, more efficient allocation of resources, and more room for innovation and creativity. But the price exacts many things too. One of these is environmental degradation; another is loss of historical buildings; still another is income and wealth disparities.

Fortunately for Hong Kong, the government has recognized that unfettered free markets could endanger the environment. The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) was established in 1986. Since the DEP was established, new regulations were established, and the economy has become less free. But Hong Kong has become a more livable city.

Economists accept that in the face of externalities, such as pollution, there is a role for government intervention. They also accept anti-monopoly policies to make markets fairer and more competitive. Economists agree that prices should be allowed to find their own levels. They believe that, generally, interfering with the free play of market forces will compromise efficiency.

For this reason, economists agree that the minimum wage, which sets a floor on wages, exacts a cost on society. But many economists, including me, believe that so long as the benefits still exceed the costs, setting a legal minimum wage may bring net social gains.

Why a redistribution policy in Hong Kong is necessary

Exactly because of this - we do want to allow the free market to work - we need redistribution policies - both in kind and in cash. Economists can demonstrate easily and formally that redistribution in kind is less efficient than redistribution in cash. However, this conclusion is valid only under some assumptions, in particular the implicit assumption that all that matters to welfare is physical goods and services, and that such "merit goods" as housing and education do not have spill-over effects. In reality, apart from physical goods and services, there is such a thing called "mental goods". In-cash redistribution could lead to what is perceived as under-consumption of basic housing, education and healthcare. This will give a "mental bad" to concerned citizens who feel bad seeing people poorly housed and neglecting the needs of their children.

This is why Hong Kong needs a redistribution policy, and the latest Policy Address by the Chief Executive said: "... despite the protection offered by the statutory minimum wage, many grassroots workers, as the sole breadwinners of families, still bear a heavy financial burden. Providing them with suitable assistance and encouraging them to remain employed will help keep them from falling into the CSSA safety net."

Thus the Low-Income Working Family Allowance is a first step in transition from "welfare" to "workfare". It is warranted first and foremost because children should not be deprived of the opportunity to develop their potential and even risk being under-nourished. It is a "conditional" transfer - conditional on there being an employed person working at least the threshold number of hours as stipulated.

Some legislators worry that the Low-Income Working Family Allowance would end up relieving employers of the need to pay higher minimum wages. Others fear that the scheme may not be fiscally sustainable. Still others worry about the possible higher tax burden on the middle class, many of whom may not be that much better off. Indeed, after all the in-kind and in-cash transfers, they may be worse off than the lower-income people who qualify for the benefits.

The first worry is misplaced. Although it does mean that minimum wages would not have to be raised too much for workers to have a decent take-home pay, this is exactly what is intended. The fact is raising the minimum wage carries a cost in terms of fewer job opportunities, especially for young and inexperienced people. But the principle of raising the minimum wage as long as the marginal increase brings greater benefits than costs should be upheld.

The second worry requires more serious consideration. Although the proposed "workfare" may reduce expenditure on welfare, we may over the long run need to raise revenues from somewhere.

Finally, the possible unfairness to the middle class also needs to be addressed. I have already proposed that a more graduated subsidy that would allow those earning above the proposed threshold to enjoy benefits that "taper" with higher earnings should be considered.

The author is director of the Center for Public Policy Studies at Lingnan University.

(HK Edition 01/29/2014 page1)

主站蜘蛛池模板: 成人毛片一区二区三区 | 中文字幕在线无限2021 | 精品国产高清在线看国产 | 欧美成人免费全网站大片 | 毛片网站观看 | 久久99精品久久久久久秒播放器 | 黄色一级片a | 在线免费成人 | 亚洲品质自拍 | 日本 欧美 在线 | 欧美国产日本精品一区二区三区 | 成人免费毛片视频 | www.色中色| 午夜国产高清精品一区免费 | 男女猛烈无遮掩免费视频 | 经典日韩| 长腿美女被啪的欲仙欲死视频 | 欧美精品亚洲人成在线观看 | ⅹxx中国xxx人妖 | 另类二区三四 | 久久亚洲精品中文字幕二区 | 美国一级大黄香蕉片 | 日韩精品午夜视频一区二区三区 | 成人女人a毛片在线看 | 91热国产 | 男人女人真曰批视频播放 | 欧美日韩精品一区二区三区不卡 | 欧美成人看片黄a免费 | 九九视频在线观看 | 亚洲三级a | 亚洲精品欧美精品 | 国产精品无码久久av | 最新国产成人综合在线观看 | 看片网站在线 | 成人免费一级毛片在线播放视频 | 99久免费精品视频在线观看2 | 91青草久久久久久清纯 | 黄a在线| 亚洲网址在线 | 大桥未久在线精品视频在线 | 国产精品区一区二区免费 |