Forum Index
this forum welcomes all forumers who appreciate decent and well thought out views and discussions. all forumers are encouraged to accept that different forumers have different views and often there is no absolutely right or wrong views.
Menu
 Forum IndexHome
FAQFAQ
MemberlistMemberlist
UsergroupsUsergroups
RegisterRegister
ProfileProfile
Log in to check your private messagesMessages
Log inLogin/Out

Quick Search

Advanced Search

Links
mysingaporenews
Singapore River Tour
Singapore Education
Singapore Orchids
littlespeck
ypapforum
Singapore Hosting
Sample Link 2
Sample Link 2

Who's Online
[ Administrator ]
[ Moderator ]


Google Search
Google

http://www.phpbb.com
cpf is my money
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Singapore Current Affairs
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13775
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

PostPosted: Sat Jun 21, 2014 10:39 am Post subject: Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Irene Yap’s case, a follow up reported in ST

I just read the ST this morning and there is a report on Irene Yap’s case. According to Amy Khor, CPF is trying to help Irene to withdraw her savings. However, Irene still has to abide by CPF’s regulation, ie that she must leave a minimum sum or pledge her property to the CPF before she can take out all her savings.

What is this minimum sum that is being introduced by the CPF that effectively said the people owe the CPF a sum of money and if this sum is not placed in the CPF, either in cash or a pledge with a property, then a sum equivalent to the minimum sum must be kept in the CPF.

Two points to this, the first of course is why should a retiree be compelled to keep a huge sum of money with the CPF when he should be living his golden years and enjoying his lifelong savings? Oh, he must keep the money, a minimum sum that is growing every year and now about $200k, so that he would not be a burden to the govt in case he squanders his money with mei meis or in Batam. It is for his own good. The govt is so caring. See my middle finger? I can’t hold it down.

The other point is that Rene is from a generation that should not be affected by all the new regulations introduced before her time. The minimum sum should not be applicable to her and those of her generation and to several generations. It should not be applicable to everyone if one rejects this ‘govt is your father’ and has the right to keep your money for your own good idiotic reason.

The CPF is the people’s money for their retirement and how they want to spend their money in retirement is none of the govt’s business. Don’t give people the crap that if they squandered away their money who is to pay for them to live on? Not the govt for sure. This is not a welfare state. And do not insult the intelligence of the people to find their way to survive without the need to beg the govt for a meal in the hawker centre, foodcourt or the restaurant.

From Amy’s and CPF’s reasoning in the ST, they are all so willing to help Irene. But the likelihood of Irene getting all her money back from the CPF is as good as zilch. She must comply with the minimum sum requirements, ie a ransom that she has to pay to the CPF. Actually no, they don’t call it ransom. They call it for your good or for the good of the members that they must make the people pay out front inn the form of the minimum sum.

So Irene’s case is as good as close and Irene can kpkb till the cow comes home. Amy Khor and the CPF will be on their knees trying to help her. I am so touch, but the answer is still no. Because CPF rules say so.

Irene should pray for a miracle to get all her money back from the CPF.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.


Last edited by redbean on Sun Jun 22, 2014 12:20 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13775
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sun Jun 22, 2014 10:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Retirement fund or fund for a rainy day
A blogger b said that the CPF fund is for retirement and not meant for a rainy day. This is a very simple way of saying what the CPF money is all about. It is for retirement. It is not to be kept forever like the nation’s reserves, waiting for that rainy day that may not come. Oops, our CPF is also classified as the nation’s reserve, so how? If it is the nation’s reserves then it is right to keep it forever for that rainy day right?
Can I say wrong? Everyone who contributes to the CPF never think of their savings becoming the nation’s reserves to be kept for a day when the country needs it, not you need it, it could be both. The people putting money into the CPF are very clear that it is for their retirement. A retirement fund is simple to be returned to them when they retired. When did they retire? It used to be 55. Then change to 60, then to 62, then to 65. What happens if retirement age is raised to 80? Possible, can? 100?
At this moment, retirement age is 65, I think. So rightfully the money must be returned to the people to use for their retirement. Tiok boh? Is the Medisave Account, with a huge minimum sum, a retirement fund? How did this animal come about? Why shouldn’t this be returned to the people when they retired? Or is this another fund to wait for a rainy day? If wait for rainy day, then cannot take out until the rainy day comes. If it comes, be grateful of this rainy day fund. But it may never come.
How many people put their savings in the CPF for a rainy day? Who changed the CPF from a retirement fund into a rainy day fund?
There is no point putting money into a retirement fund when you cannot take it out when you retire. It defeats the meaning of a retirement fund. Can anyone see the difference that I am making, or what b said? Is it so confusing? Who is still unable to make out the difference between a retirement fund and a fund for rainy day? A fund that you cannot take out when you retired is not a retirement fund.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13775
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Mon Jun 23, 2014 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

More excuses not to return CPF money at 55
A blogger by the name of Gemini wrote an article on this issue and posted in the TRE. He/she quoted an ST article as THE good reason, and I repost a bit of it here,
Sunday Times, March 12, 2006
Mistress island
Welcome to Pulau Amat Belanda, second home to many Singapore men who visit their ‘weekend wives’ there
There is an island near Batam that receives, almost exclusively, male Singaporean visitors.
When the men get off the boat, they pay 25,000 rupiah (about $5) to register with the security men. Their passports are checked, and details such as their names, IC numbers and Singapore addresses noted.
Then they head to the homes of their ‘weekend wives’, rooms rented in stilted wooden houses. This is Pulau Amat Belanda, 30 minutes by boat from Sekupang port in Batam, an island that is a red-light district all on its own.
Almost every male visitor to the Indonesian island has an ‘exclusive’ relationship with a woman there, to whom they give a cash allowance of between two million and five million rupiah ($350 to $900) every month to keep them from straying….

The reason to hold back the people’s life savings is because they kept mistresses, not because they lost their money and begging the govt for financial assistance. Let’s be very clear about the justification of Gemini’s rationale. It is the men’s amorous activities that justified holding back their money in the CPF. From the article, these men are rich and can afford it. Their scandalous lifestyle is not acceptable to many on legal, moral or social grounds, but is that a good reason to hold back their life savings in the CPF? Is this not a judgment call on moral grounds to keep the men from straying? Can this be the reason to be a blanket cover to hold all the men’s money in the CPF just because of a few sexy men? And can this be a blanket cover for the holding back of the CPF money of women as well?
This is really frightening. Imagine if the govt are made up of men and women who think like Gemini. The next thing they will do is to freeze the accounts of rich men and women in the banks. Come to think of it this is quite possible given that there are so many priests and priestesses among the few good men and women in power. And if such a reason is seen as good, right, logical, acceptable, I have many more good reasons to keep the men and women from withdrawing their monies in the CPF at 55. My list will be so long that it will fill a library and will take 56 man years to write them down. So I will spare you people the agony and time reading them.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13775
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Tue Jun 24, 2014 8:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CPF – Between the devil and the deep blue sea
The Hongkies have this saying, money earned is to spend. What is the point of making so much money and not spending it? I think they have a point. There are many misers who would earn and earn and build a mountain of savings but live poorly only to pass away leaving behind a fortune that they never have the good fortune to enjoy.
The Sinkie philosophy, or at least this is the official philosophy, is to save and save. Don’t spend, keep it for tomorrow. With this kind of con talks, oops, I mean wisdom, Sinkies will all end up with a lot of savings and feeling very secure and rich for a tomorrow that may not come. Many will die very very rich, but the end result is that other people will be spending their money for them, to enjoy their life time savings for the stupidity of Sinkies.
The more painful part, when the rich save, they save their extra cash and still enjoy a rich life, every moment of it. When the not so rich or poor save, they actually have to tighten their belt, forgo something today and hoping they could have a bit of something tomorrow. And the saddest part, they deprived themselves of the present, eat less, enjoy less and could end up unable to enjoy a tomorrow that did not come. They lose out upfront and lose out at the end.
Which is a better wisdom, to spend now or not to spend now? In the former, at least one gets to enjoy the present. In the latter, one loses out in both ends in the case of the not rich. In this either or case, isn’t it better to live now than hope for a better tomorrow?
The ideal is of course moderation. Save a bit when one can, save a lot when one can, and hope to live an easier life tomorrow. As for the conmen that advocate people to save and not to eat now, be careful and don’t be duped by them. Many conmen only give con advice for their benefits.
PS, saving a lot of money is the privilege of the rich. For the poor who don’t even have enough to eat, saving is double tragedy when forced upon them. In the case of CPF savings, how many died before they could spend a single cent on themselves?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13775
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Thu Jun 26, 2014 8:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tharman is making me nervous
This is quoted from a post in TRE on what Tharman had said about the CPF money. ‘…Temasek Holdings, TH, need a source of cheap funds, Tharman had said there are many other sources of cheap funds besides CPF.’ Now you see why I am nervous?
Think, why would a fund manager borrow from a more expensive source when other cheaper sources are available? And he is like saying he is doing CPF members a favour. Is he a philantrophist? If one is to know how generous a philantrophist is in giving, would you want a philantrophist to manage your money? Frightening or not?
I would rather Tharman go and borrow from a cheaper source that has better terms than from CPF. I can’t say he is stupid to die die must borrow from CPF when it is more costly.
Now you see what I am driving at? If I were to put money in a fund, I would not want to put into one where the fund manager stupidly go and borrow from a more expensive source when they is no need to. Or is he hiding something, that overall this more expensive source is providing many many advantages that he is not telling us, like pay back only when you want to, can afford to, or take your time, for as long as you like, no need collateral or track records?
Is CPF members getting a good deal or the Govt?
What do you think?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13775
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2014 8:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CPF – A cut off age to stop contributing
CPF is a forced savings towards a retirement fund, a time and age when the contributor is expected to retire from active employment and to take life at a slower pace with the life savings that he had set aside. At some point in time, people stop working or retire. Some may choose to continue to work if they are physically able, wanted to or needed to. In the last case, it is likely that there is no or not enough savings and no other form of financial support from the family.
In general, people may want to retire after spending a whole life working.
And the retirement fund comes in handy for this purpose. Some may not have much but could make do with family support and could choose to enjoy a life of leisure within their means.
Under the CPF scheme, there is no such thing as a cut off age when a person can stop contributing. In the case of employment, including self employed, one can still be economically active even at 70, 80 or 90 and is expected to contribute to the CPF, for the self employed into the Medisave Account. What the fuck for? These economically active seniors are in much better financial situation than those who have retired, unemployed and have no income. What are they contributing into the CPF for, for their retirement? If they are still working at such a ripe age, many would pass away without knowing what is retirement?
In the case of self employed, even if their Medisave Accounts have exceeded the minimum sum, they are legally required to contribute more to renew their licence. What for? Why is there no cut off date for a person to stop contributing to the CPF/Medisave? Has the CPF Board forgotten what is CPF contribution all about? Or they are treating this as a kind of taxation? You work, you contribute to the Fund. You want your licence, you pay up.
What is going on? There must be a cut off age when contributing to the CPF in any forms except on a voluntary basis must ceased.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13775
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Watching Parliament debate is like watching a horror movie
I managed to catch a couple of minutes of the news when the CPF was discussed. They were talking about the withdrawal of CPF on retirement. The argument went something like this. The govt allowed CPF members to withdraw their money in one lump sum at 55 at a time when life was short. The people were expected to die in 5 or 7 years after retiring at 55. Today, life expectancy is 82, so there is a need to ensure that people have the money to spend after retirement. Letting them have the money at one go and at too early an age would mean depleting the saving faster.
Jumping onto this logic, Lim Bee Wah asked the govt to consider working backwards from 82 to allow the people to get a lump sum on retirement. Most retirees are looking forward to touch their life time savings when they retired. Chuan Jin’s reply, extending the logic of longer lifespan, it was not possible to know how long people would live after 82. They could go on living and it was necessary to make sure that they have money to go on living.
Here came my goose pimples, and my hair stood on ends. Fear crept up and I was really frightened, like watching a horror movie. No, Chuan Jin and Lim Bee Wah did not turn into Dracula or vampire. It was this sense of wholesome goodness for the people, so caring and so earnest to want the people to live well till their last day. I cannot imagine that there are really people that are so virtuous, so good and so genuine in this world to really want to help other people. No, don’t get me wrong. Chuan Jin was really sincere in wanting to help the retirees. I would have doubts if it was someone else selling his koyok.
It was too good to be true. And the scary part is that it was true. And they are going to make sure that the retirees will have the money to spend, and no lump sum return of their savings, and the payback will be delayed for as long as possible to make the money last, perhaps another 100 years. Oops, I shouldn’t say that. They might believe people will live to 200 years and make your CPF savings provide for it. Bad idea to say that. And the people will have to leave their money with the CPF for a very very long time. Irene Yap, or is it Renee Yap, should not gripe about withdrawing her money in the CPF. Going forward, CPF retirees would be expected to leave their money in the CPF to last them their life time being alive.
This is now a case of better to overprovide than underprovide. Chuan Jin is right to say that no one can predict how long a person would live beyond 82. But he was silence on how many would not live beyond 55 or 60. Anyway, this part is not important as they would not be a burden to themselves or to the state if they die young.
Gan Kim Yong should follow the same principles in his Medishield Life scheme. I think Gan Kim Yong is doing the opposite by providing the minimum, B2/C wards intead of A wards or private hospital wards. Should not Gan Kim Yong follow the same logic, provide for the best, for all contingencies like Chuan Jin? Or why don’t Chuan Jin borrow the principle of Gan Kim Yong, provide for the basics or minimum, and the extra or excessive part would be an option? Gan Kim Yong may be providing for B2/C wards but the people can opt for better wards by voluntarily paying more. For a compulsory across the board scheme, this is a sensible approach.
In the case of the CPF, the govt can go for the best, though it claimed to be using the lower income Singaporean as the benchmark, as the money to be retained in the CPF comes from the people themselves. If the money is to come from the govt, would the govt use the same yardstick, to demand the people to keep so much money in the CPF/minimum sum after retirement?
I still remember the saying, when the govt says it wants to help you, is so serious and happy and voluntarily offering to help you, be frighten, be very frighten. The thought of saving enough CPF to live up to 100 years or 200 years is really damn scary. I could not sleep the whole night. It was a frightening display of human goodness at its extreme. You don’t need enemies if you have people thinking like that and planning your life and your money…for your own good.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13775
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Mon Jul 14, 2014 8:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CPF – All talks lead to Rome

So many ministers have spoken about the CPF. They appeared to be saying different things. On close analysis, they all points to one direction, they are not going to return your CPF at 55 or 65 in one lump sum, or a meaningful sum. And what do these mean? Why are they so adamant to hold back your CPF despite the public expression of anger? For your own good? Or is it something else? The govt seems to be taking a stance of defiance, ears plugged and not wanting to listen to the angry voices of hte people. Kenneth Jeyaretnam has a long list of reasons why.

Look at all the schemes and changes to the CPF, and the answer is crystal clear. The minimum sums, the Medisave and Retirement accounts, the CPF Life and now the Medishield Life, what did they say? Be prepared for something like CPF AfterLife to complete the cycle of cradle to grave.

CPF is your money, so they said. So he’s a jolly good fellow, so he’s a jolly good fellow, so he’s a jolly good fellow, so say all of us.

It may be a difficult thing to determine who needs to leave their money in the CPf Board as they are weak in mind and ability to hold on to their money. But it is not difficult to pick up those who don’t need to leave any money in the CPF after 55. By this age the game of life is almost over and what a person is made of is fairly clear to see. Before we tread into this dangerous doctrine, that the govt can withhold a citizen’s money on the ground that the citizen is deemed stupid and irresponsible, the people must make it known to the govt that this kind of thinking and logic is flawed, unacceptable and a violation of an individual’s right.

All the rich and super rich, including those with landed properties worth more than a million do not need the CPF to hold on to their money. All those who have filial children supporting them do not need to leave money in the CPF. All those who are still working in self employed professions and likely to work till they die or willingly call it quits, no need the CPF. All those who never or would not go to Batam and Bintan are safe with their money. All those who are dying do not need the CPF’s caring hands.

Really, it is only a very small group of people that need to depend on the protection of kind, very kind and caring people in the govt to help them to look after their money passed 55. Even if they choose to let the govt manage their money, it must be voluntarily, not because the govt declared that they are incapable of looking after their money, not because the govt forecast that they would live to 100 years old. No where in the world can a govt hold on to the people’s money at will and at its own pleasure, against the will of the owners of the money.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13775
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed Jul 23, 2014 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CPF is not just a game
Chuan Jin used the analogy of a game to describe what is happening to the CPF scheme at the CPF Forum organized by the Institute of Policy Studies. He was referring to the changing conditions and said that the rules of the game had changed, conditions had changed. The CPF scheme is not about a game but about the people’s life savings for retirement. The govt must get this straight and not to confuse with govt pension schemes where the fund comes from the public coffer. The govt can change all the rules of a pension scheme, no one will care or object to it. The money in the CPF scheme comes from the pocket of the people, saving for their retirement. Please don’t suka suka change the rules without the people’s consent.
The compulsion to save in the first part of the people’s life, up to 55 years old, is a necessary evil. The second part or the next phase must be the return of the money to the savers. It is as simply as that. The govt has no moral right to keep the people’s money at its own pleasure. Legislating it to be legal is still not right. Taking this further, the govt might as well legislate the savings of the people in the banks, like in Greece and take a portion of it?
Put it simply, the money must be returned to the people at 55. Period. Given the changing circumstances and life expectancy, the younger generations may have to relook at what is a reasonable age to take back their savings. For those in their 50s and above, they should be taking back all their savings at 55. The good hearted govt can think of ways to design favourable and attractive schemes like annuity plans, or savings plans with higher interest rates to entice the people to leave their money in such schemes, VOLUNTARILY, after 55. The people must be allowed to exercise their choice on what they want to do with their money, NOT the govt’s money. This is basic human decency! Can the boys and girls understand this?
No more funny schemes to retain the money in the CPF compulsorily because the boys and girls said so. The govt can no longer treat the people as daft peasants of the 3rd world, unthinking, irresponsible with their money and helpless. The people are well educated, well informed and definitely not daft, definitely smarter than many of the policy makers.
And what is this thing that people must keep on contributing to their CPF regardless of how old they are when they have to apply or renew their licences? After certain age, it is time to take out the savings, time to stop savings for tomorrow that can really be the next day or the next hour. For those who have a lot of money, they can go on and on saving even if they are 100 years old. Those are different kind of people.
What say you, boys and girls?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13775
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 8:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CPF – What is there to tweak?
To many CPF members, all they want is to get their money back at 55. What is there to tweak? To the govt, it could mean a few things. They believe they were doing all the right things and could afford to be deaf. Now when the muffler had be snatched away, they found the noise too painful to bear, and with a lot of genuine complaints that cannot be ignored, that what the govt was doing to the CPF was unacceptable. Apparently the govt is acknowledging that not all is well.
Credit must go to Roy and Hui Hui and their team of speakers, not forgetting the protestors that spent time and money to get to Hong Lim, rain or shine. No one can keep a rotting carcase in a box forever without the stench reaching out to hit everyone.
Now is tweaking time instead of scheming time. And the govt is going to tweak the CPF, but it is still not going to return the money to the people at 55. This part die die cannot be tweaked. So, would all the impending tweaks mean anything or change anything?
What is the main issue? What is the main bugbear? Would the tweaking deal with the real problem, the real unhappiness of the people?
What do you think? Roy, please tell them the truths, gently, nicely. If they don’t understand or don’t want to understand, keep repeating, keep repeating.
The govt is still practicing selective listening. The part on returning the money at 55 is still not heard, would not be heard.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13775
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sun Jul 27, 2014 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If they spend all their savings then how?
Heard Chuan Jin using this same argument again at the CPF forum. So? Is this an acceptable reason for the govt to hold back the people’s life savings? Many people would not have enough savings in their CPF anyway. This is a normal scenario in all countries. But very few would be so desperate to need govt handouts. So?
Whether people spent away their life savings prematurely, many would not have anything left or enough to feed themselves past 70 anyway, is a different problem and a different matter. Many would have other means and sources of income to keep them going. And for those who don’t have any money left, not necessary squandering their CPF savings away, as they just did not have the means to save enough, not clever enough to earn millions, what is the govt going to do about them?
Just because some people have some savings in their CPF, does it mean that the govt can grab hold of this money on the excuse or pretext that they would spend them and would have nothing in old age? How many have the good fortune to have enough savings to last through their lives?
What is the govt going to do with people that have no savings and still need to live on? These are stupid people, irresponsible people, they deserve to starve to death? Smart people and responsible people may also end up in such a situation through a stroke of bad luck or misfortune.
It is not a reason or a good reason for the govt to hold on to the people’s money in the CPF on the ground that they people would spend them and left with nothing. Many would spend them, for the right or wrong reasons. So? Is this a justifiable reason, morally and ethical reason to hijack the people’s savings, all the people’s savings, because a few may need help? Even God would not have the audacity or arrogance to make such a decision, to take the people’s money away from them.
Life is not so simple as one would expect it. Save, save a lot, be thrifty, be responsible and you will be alright. Some of the super talents and millionaire ministers may end up bankrupt and needing govt assistance one day.
What is the problem with the govt’s justification to withhold the people’s life savings, to manage it at its own discretion, without needing the consent of the people, the owners of the money?
What is the govt going to tell those who would not live past 65 or 70 and did not have the chance to spend their life savings to live a few good days or a few good years. There will be more who would not benefit from their life savings due to premature death than the few who would need govt assistance.
Please tell the people it is your right as a democratically elected govt to do such a thing.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13775
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Mon Jul 28, 2014 1:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CPF and retirement plans
For those who have been following the public discussion on the CPF schemes and how it should be tweaked into a better system must be very assured of how good the improved version 1.01 would be, or must be. The experts have them all worked out. The new system would be carefully structured and calibrated to apportion the CPF savings for retirement, for medical, for emergencies, for sudden short of funds, and for the savers to retire comfortably with no worries.
I would not hazard to guess how much one would need to put into the CPF to have peace of mind and no financial worries in the golden years. And it would likely have to prepare the people to save enough to live till 100 years.
All this sounds so good. The main assumption is that the people can afford to save all the money they need to save. Question, what about those who cannot afford to save? What about those who don’t even have enough to meet their daily needs?
There is also this tussle between saving enough to retire and live comfortably or a scheme that treat the CPF as one of many other provisions for old age, and that a compulsory scheme should only dictate one to provide for the minimum or basic needs. Even the Medishield Life which I thought was on the right track in providing for the basic coverage, there are people, rich people, who wanted the Medishield Life to provide for B1. If this is an upgrade for those who are able to pay for more, it is fair. If this is used by the rich for their rich nees, and used as the premise for computing the premiums for all, then the not so rich would end up sharing the cost of the rich.
I still think that such compulsory schemes should be designed to cater for the lowest denominator, the basics while the extras should be an options for those who demands for them and able to pay for them. Do not make the poor pay for the fancies of the rich in a public compulsory scheme. And the CPF must not be thinking of becoming the only means of savings and thus must be loaded up for a comfy retirement for the rich. People have many other ways to provide for their retirement and CPF is not the only way. Do not impose a savings schemes on the people that cannot afford to have one. And do not make the CPF the mother of all savings schemes to provide for everything under the sky. Not many can afford such a comprehensive and rich scheme, or need such a scheme. Many would rely on family support for their golden years and even regard the CPF as superfluous.
There are many roads leading to Rome.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13775
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Wed Jul 30, 2014 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CPF – No good reason to hold back the people’s money after 55

Over the years, and in the last few weeks, many people have been regurgitating the same few reasons for the govt to withhold or retain the people’s life savings for as long as the govt so decides. And none of the reason is acceptable, reasonable, logical, sensible, justifiable, morally ethical, believeable… without sounding deceitful, childish and foolish, to hold back the life savings of a few million citizens of sound mind, sensible, responsible, mature, knowledgeable, experience and financially able to manage their own money. Many of those reaching 55 are well educated men and women holding very responsible positions in top management, professionals, but all lumped together like the ignorant, reckless, irresponsible and uneducated peasants that would throw away all their money in a moment of fancy or be cheated of everything.

The top reason, what if they spend all their money quickly? So?
The next hot favourite, what if they spend their money on pretty mei meis or go to Batam or Bintang or Lijiang? So?
What if they go to the casinos and gamble everything away? So?
What if they splurge on cars or luxury items to live like a king for a few days? So?
What if they really did not know how to manage their money? So?
What if they got cheated by the con men and con women? So?
What if they adopted some pretty god daughters who happily addressed them as sugar daddy? So?
What if they stand on top of a building and threw all their money away? So?
What if they live to 80, 90 or 100 years? So?

There are many reasons that we cannot think of, cannot imagine of, that a person would squander all his money withdrawn from the CPF? So? For every one of these reasons, or a combination of these reasons, or for all the above reasons, is it good enough a reason for the govt to withhold the money of all the innocent, sensible and responsible from them at 55?

The act of withholding all the people’s money just because of a few that would squander their money away, one way or another, is as good as condemning every one reaching 55 as idiots, irresponsible, imbeciles, and stupid. All will be found guilty and must be punished for a crime they did not commit or would not commit but on the assumption that they will commit. What kind of reasoning is that? What kind of justice is that? Everyone presumed guilty, presumed to be reckless and irresponsible with their money?

Such a reasoning and action cannot even hold water in a 3rd World country where the majority of the people are uneducated and ignorant. We are talking about a population of educated, widely travelled, experienced, knowledgeable and responsible people at the prime of their lives and would remain so for another 20 or 30 years! Why can’t they be trusted with their own money? Which boy or girl in the govt said so?

And this is not even an issue. There is no good reason to retain or keep a person’s life savings from him when he/she reaches 55. Absolutely no good reason. Period. Even if he is of unsound mind, his family should have the right to take care of him and his money. This is private matter. What has the govt got to do with it?

To accede to such logic is a very dangerous precedent. In the same thinking, all the people can be put in jail to protect their lives as some are found to jump onto train tracks or walked into the reservoir. Could a well educated populace be stupid enough to say such reasoning is good, healthy and ethically correct to be used to restrict or restrain the freedom of the people and the use of their money? It is unbelieveable that some really think it is ok.

What right has the govt to meddle with the people’s money? It is not your money, dummy.
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13775
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Thu Jul 31, 2014 8:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CPF an asset or liability to the govt?
We have been told that our CPF is part, or a major part, of our national reserves. It must therefore be an asset. As such, it is good to keep growing the reserves with more and more CPF money in it. And as an asset, you don’t have to worry about returning it. Our national reserves cannot be used anyhow right? It would need the President’s approval, if I am not mistaken, to touch our national reserves. So to touch our CPF money, which is part of the reserves, is unthinkable. Can see cannot touch. It is sacred, part of the national reserves. A govt can only spend the surplus revenue it generated.
What if the CPF is a liability to the govt, a borrowed fund that must be returned? If our CPF is a liability, then there would be no incentive to keep it in the reserves but to reduce it when there is a surplus, to reduce the liability. And if it is a liability, the funds managing it must also be thinking about redemption by the members. When CPF members hit 55, they are going to withdraw their CPF savings. But when funds managing the CPF money do not think it is a liability that is subject to withdrawal and redemption, there is no need to ensure that the fund is liquid to meet such requirements. The funds can invest for the long term, and when there is no need to return, and the long term can be forever.
Why is the CPF saving the nation’s reserves when it is the people’s money that must be returned? Is this an international convention, an accounting convention, to regard the people’s savings as national reserves and an asset that does not need to be returned?
Can anyone clarify on these contradictions?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
redbean



Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 13775
Location: singapore

PostPosted: Sat Aug 09, 2014 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CPF – An asset or a liability to YOU?
CPF is our life savings, how can it be a liability? By 55 we should all be happily getting it out from our CPF accounts for our retirement. Ok, the rules have changed, by 65 we should be happy, late than never.
The rude shock to CPF members, by 55 they are told that they ‘owe’ the CPF or the govt $155,000 in the Retiremment Account and $43,500 in the Medisave Account. Yes, you need to let the CPF or govt have these sums of money like you owe them. If you don’t have enough in your CPF savings, or lesser than these sums in your CPF, you cannot take out your savings. But the CPF would be so kind to let you have $5,000. Or you can pledge your property to the CPF for half of the total sum of the total sum of $198,500, or is it half of the $155,000, with the CPF.
Put it whatever you like, isn’t this a liability, a huge sum of money that you now ‘owe’ to the CPF? Yes or No? By 55, many would find the CPF a liability instead of an asset in away.
This must be another Uniquely Singapore thing. You can owe the govt or a savings scheme money when you are supposed to be taking out your savings to live your golden years. And many Singaporeans are finding this damn stressful.
Oh, not to forget, if you sell your property bought using your CPF savings, you have to return the sum borrowed plus the equivalent of interests that the money should have earned over the same period to your CPF account even if you are retired, in your 80s or 90s or 120s. It is not that after the withdrawal age kicks in, whatever money you took out for the purchase of properties is none of the CPF business. All these open ended contributions to the CPF regardless of age must be driving many people crazy, except the people making these rules and collecting the money.
Tiok boh?
_________________
what i posted is just my personal view. feel free to disagree.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic     Forum Index -> Singapore Current Affairs All times are GMT + 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 2 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group. Hosted by Vodien Internet Solutions