- Joined
- Dec 30, 2010
- Messages
- 12,730
- Points
- 113
Even PMO said its not appropriate?
In this connection, I wrote a letter to the media, “asking why a real median income growth rate of -0.6% for 2011 was used in the calculation of the National Bonus for political office-holders, and the Prime Minister’s Office and MOM came out to clarify:
“MOM’s 1.0% real median income growth rate for employed Singaporeans included the employers’ CPF contributions while the -0.6% real median income growth rate used by PMO for the National Bonus calculation did not include it.
PMO said it had computed the National Bonus payout using income figures sans the contributions as it was felt that changes to employers’ CPF rates are decided by the Government and, hence, should not be linked to the payout for political office-holders.” – TR Emeritus link, Apr 7, 2012
So, even the PMO concedes that the real median income growth (excluding employer CPF contribution) is the more appropriate measure.
- http://leongszehian.com/?p=5787
In this connection, I wrote a letter to the media, “asking why a real median income growth rate of -0.6% for 2011 was used in the calculation of the National Bonus for political office-holders, and the Prime Minister’s Office and MOM came out to clarify:
“MOM’s 1.0% real median income growth rate for employed Singaporeans included the employers’ CPF contributions while the -0.6% real median income growth rate used by PMO for the National Bonus calculation did not include it.
PMO said it had computed the National Bonus payout using income figures sans the contributions as it was felt that changes to employers’ CPF rates are decided by the Government and, hence, should not be linked to the payout for political office-holders.” – TR Emeritus link, Apr 7, 2012
So, even the PMO concedes that the real median income growth (excluding employer CPF contribution) is the more appropriate measure.
- http://leongszehian.com/?p=5787
