Rate differs due to CPF contribution
- TODAY (05 April 2012) : Rate differs due to CPF contribution
- TODAY (05 April 2012): Why the difference in income growth rate?
Rate differs due to CPF contribution
- TODAY, 05 April 2012
We refer to Mr Leong Sze Hian’s letter “Median income growth: MOM says +1%, PSD says -0.6%” on the difference in real income growth rates cited by PSD for the calculation of the National Bonus for political office-holders, and the real median income growth rate in MOM’s Employment Situation 2011 report.
MOM’s figures on income growth, as reported in “Employment Situation, 2011”, include employers’ CPF contributions, while PSD’s figures exclude employers’ CPF contributions. MOM has reported growth in income including employers’ CPF contributions as they form a significant part of compensation from work among resident employees, and are used to meet housing and healthcare costs besides savings for retirement.
PSD had computed the National Bonus payout using income figures that exclude employers’ CPF contributions, as it was felt that changes to employers’ CPF rates are decided on by the Government and hence, should not be linked to the National Bonus payout of political appointment holders.
Why the difference in income growth rate?
- TODAY, 05 April 2012
I refer to the report "1.618 months pro-rated National Bonus for political office- holders" (March 27). The article stated that there was no payout under the real median income growth rate indicator as it was -0.6 per cent last year.
There was a 50-per-cent payout for another indicator - the real income growth rate of the lowest 20th percentile, which was 1.8 per cent.
However, according to the Manpower Ministry's Employment Situation 2011 report, the real median income growth rate of Singaporean workers was 1 per cent last year.
For the 20th percentile, it was 2.5 per cent.
Why is it that the ministry's figures differ from those used in calculating the National Bonus for political office holders?