What's PM's LabourDay msg got to do with the aged?
-
Dear Atobe,
after 3-4 rounds of debate, I still see no outcome. First of all, you branded me as "slithering". I would appreciate if you could go back to my posts and scrutinise my statements again.
To infer that I would turn my back on my statements with little effort after reading your views is a derision of my personal character.
I often read your views in Speaker's Corner. They are strong and reasonable arguments backed up with a sound knowledge of facts and figures. Isn't it? However, you tend to go into personal attacks, albeit subtle ones. Unnecessary, in my opinion. It clouds one's judgement and rational cognition. You are also inclined to downright wrestle the opponent over to your views. I could term it as"never say die". That mentality again blurs your sense of proportion.
I do not intend to continue this debate further as it is going nowhere.
Fyi, my summary of CSJ is this (even before debate):
1) He has the passion and courage to stand up for democracy
2) He is an intellectual with an understanding of the region's economics
3) He has been badly portrayed by our media, so much so that millions of Singaporeans see him as a lunatic, often barking up the wrong tree.
4) He must be applauded for giving up his comfortable job as a psychology lecturer to enter the opposing end of politics.
I can't profess to know very much about him but I have read two of his books and I have seen numerous rallies of him via youtube. I have even viewed a clip of him and family at their HQ. I have also been to the SDP website to read his political and economic ideologies.
Still, my conclusion of him is: He's a goner. We do not have to wait for LKY's death. As far as his lifetime is concerned, he has no more hope in our political arena. I can do an essay on him and back it up with my arguments but there's no need for this currently. As usual, you will cry foul of my statements but it does not matter anymore. -
Oh apologies, I forgot to add my own views on the political situation in Singapore.
Just a quick summary:
1) It is sad that we have so little opposition in parliament
2) PAP uses propaganda to its full effect which is another sad thing
3) Image counts in politics, to the extent of it superceding a politician's political and economic acumen
4) Opposition parties must build much more credibility if they are to succeed at the next elections
My vote for the last election has gone to WP. That's because they are keen to bring in new and talented blood. They also play the game within PAP's boundaries because once they step out of line, jail awaits. And then reputation goes down. Well, other reasons too.
Play the game within the tiger's lair, once the opportunity presents itself, make the kill. -
Oh to Atobe again,
this was what you mentioned before:
In his early political experience, LKY was averse to phototakings, as they never presented him in the most photogenic ways, and he even admitted that he looked like a typical Singaporean ruffian - even a 1950s gangster.
He had the benefit of controlling all print and broadcast media over the last 45 years of absolute power, and every event since then were stage managed, with camera angles and carefully selected photos published.
Can you believe in these events ? The cynics know better - the kopitiam crowd cheered CSJ guts.
My "why not" was in response to the underlined. That's why I say, scrutinise my statements but you choose to do otherwise. Hope this clarifies. -
You could have save yourself the trouble of being exposed for your slithering approach in debate.Originally posted by Rock^Star:Oh to Atobe again,
this was what you mentioned before:
In his early political experience, LKY was averse to phototakings, as they never presented him in the most photogenic ways, and he even admitted that he looked like a typical Singaporean ruffian - even a 1950s gangster.
He had the benefit of controlling all print and broadcast media over the last 45 years of absolute power, and every event since then were stage managed, with camera angles and carefully selected photos published.
Can you believe in these events ? The cynics know better - the kopitiam crowd cheered CSJ guts.
My "why not" was in response to the underlined. That's why I say, scrutinise my statements but you choose to do otherwise. Hope this clarifies.
Now that you have clarified your "Why Not ?" - what did you agree to ?
Are we to interprete "Why Not ?" in a manner that YOU CAN BELIEVE that it is justifiable for LKY to benefit from his monopolistic grip, and YOU WILL BELIEVE the images that he created to be true of what CSJ is capable of being ?
The words "Why Not ?" by itself means nothing and give an answer to nothing, but is a defiant and petulant retort of a child cornered, and planning his next move to escape when the opportunity present itself. -
My mistake, I should have cut and paste better. I tried to explain subsequently but you had already stereotyped me.Originally posted by Atobe:You could have save yourself the trouble of being exposed for your slithering approach in debate.
Now that you have clarified your "Why Not ?" - what did you agree to ?
Are we to interprete "Why Not ?" in a manner that YOU CAN BELIEVE that it is justifiable for LKY to benefit from his monopolistic grip, and YOU WILL BELIEVE the images that he created to be true of what CSJ is capable of being ?
The words "Why Not ?" by itself means nothing and give an answer to nothing, but is a defiant and petulant retort of a child cornered, and planning his next move to escape when the opportunity present itself. -
Stick to your coloring books and images, if you are handicapped with words too difficult to express your thoughts.Originally posted by Rock^Star:My mistake, I should have cut and paste better. I tried to explain subsequently but you had already stereotyped me. -
You really do live up to my expectations:Originally posted by Atobe:Stick to your color books and images, if you find words to difficult.
Strong and sound in argument, yet subtle in personal attacks. The latter is unnecessary though.
Ok enough bantering with you. See you soon.... -
Sorry to budge in, but savings for retirement with 4% when you are young is suicidal. There is almost guarantee that inflation would erode the value of your money. Was the money used solely to invest in property, gold, bonds, low risk investments? Or was it used to fund DBS NOL and many GLC as well as infrastructure? And who pockets the difference in the yield of the investments? Not to mentioned only some accounts gets 4%. most of the time you would be getting 2.6%.Originally posted by Gazelle:Does fund manager guarantee the returns of investment, or is it subject to risk?
Do you think it is a good idea to let someone to invest our billion dollars CPF monies in high risk investment? Can CPF contribute to negative return during bear market?
I believe CPF monies are invested through GIC, which maintain a portfolio of low risk investment such as property, gold, bonds etc. Hence a annual "riskfree" return of 4% is definitely more attractive than putting your money in Singapore fixed deposit.
The CPF was a scheme to avoid reliance on foreign debt but at the expense of the local citizens. And then when they dont have enough to retire, you can kick them aside. -
I think recently in the newpapers was saying that the government is tigthening the net on people who are not contributing CPF, either those who are holding odd jobs or salaries are very low, will have to contribute. Looks like they are really desparate, scraping to the bottom of the pot.
-
This is some serious heavy artillery going on...
Remarkable debate by Atobe!
-
Tell them go and die!Originally posted by carrotsoup:I think recently in the newpapers was saying that the government is tigthening the net on people who are not contributing CPF, either those who are holding odd jobs or salaries are very low, will have to contribute. Looks like they are really desparate, scraping to the bottom of the pot.
People who can hardly make ends meet still want them to contribute CPF money for them to hold tight tight - and when they are old, they return the money drop by drop...
nbcb! -
With all respect, Shutterbug, I don't think you understand the debate enough to comment.Originally posted by ShutterBug:This is some serious heavy artillery going on...
Remarkable debate by Atobe! -
The interest rate of CPF will always move in tandem with inflation rate. Plus why should you care how the government invest their money if they can guarantee a return of investment which is higher than bank saving interest rate?Originally posted by kilua:Sorry to budge in, but savings for retirement with 4% when you are young is suicidal. There is almost guarantee that inflation would erode the value of your money. Was the money used solely to invest in property, gold, bonds, low risk investments? Or was it used to fund DBS NOL and many GLC as well as infrastructure? And who pockets the difference in the yield of the investments? Not to mentioned only some accounts gets 4%. most of the time you would be getting 2.6%.
The CPF was a scheme to avoid reliance on foreign debt but at the expense of the local citizens. And then when they dont have enough to retire, you can kick them aside.
Do you have reason to believe that Singaporeans will be better prepared for retirement if there is no CPF?
I suppose you have forgotten that it is also in all employers' interest not to contribute to CPF. -
Lots of welfare states in the West are trying to do that actually...the UK for one:Originally posted by blueheeler:“Which other developed nation in the world tries to get their elderly to work longer/retire later, rather than retire and enjoy retirement”, I wonder? I think this is the twisted logic of a staunchly non-welfare state where the elderly have to take care of themselves, despite how much they’ve contributed to the nation in their youths.
"The government is deliberating over whether to outlaw company retirement ages and the CBI has mooted that the state pension age be raised to 70 by 2030..."
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4016969.stm)
The pensions of the elderly will not be enough given an aging population, with fewer young workers who pay taxes and the old living longer. British employers (who pay into the pension funds for their workers) are giving their older workers a choice: work longer or accept a lower pension upon retirement.
Singapore's elderly will become a burden on their families if they do not have enough retirement funds. Pushing them oon to the government is not a solution. The government derives its income from the people. Given an increasing proportion of the elderly in the population, that will place a heavy burden on the young tax payers and will discourage investment.
Don't forget why Rover at Longbridge had to close. Shanghai Automotive was almost ready to buy Rover and keep it running in UK....until they realized they would have to fill in the black hole in the pension fund for the older workers (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4410459.stm). In the end, the Chinese gave up the deal and left thousands of Rover workers jobless and with little in their pensions.
Retirement is enjoyable only if you have money to retire. Working hard and working longer is the only way to secure a comfortable retirement. -
And with all due respect too, there is NOTHING for me to understand about CPF (or that I want to bother), except that it is a TOOL for gov to harvest money from us, and that it has generally FAILED as what they've called a Social Security Net'...Originally posted by Rock^Star:With all respect, Shutterbug, I don't think you understand the debate enough to comment.
It isn't worth 'understanding', because it serves largely their end, appearing only as a delusion to many... and will only be beneficial when you pack up and leave this country for good...
-
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
OM,
Lots of welfare states in the West are trying to do that actually...the UK for one:
[b]"The government is deliberating over whether to outlaw company retirement ages and the CBI has mooted that the state pension age be raised to 70 by 2030..."
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4016969.stm)
The pensions of the elderly will not be enough given an aging population, with fewer young workers who pay taxes and the old living longer. British employers (who pay into the pension funds for their workers) are giving their older workers a choice: work longer or accept a lower pension upon retirement.
Singapore's elderly will become a burden on their families if they do not have enough retirement funds. Pushing them oon to the government is not a solution. The government derives its income from the people. Given an increasing proportion of the elderly in the population, that will place a heavy burden on the young tax payers and will discourage investment.
Don't forget why Rover at Longbridge had to close. Shanghai Automotive was almost ready to buy Rover and keep it running in UK....until they realized they would have to fill in the black hole in the pension fund for the older workers (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4410459.stm). In the end, the Chinese gave up the deal and left thousands of Rover workers jobless and with little in their pensions.
Retirement is enjoyable only if you have money to retire. Working hard and working longer is the only way to secure a comfortable retirement.
[/b]
You are making a big mistake in comparing our retirements and medical cares or taxations with the western countries by selective comparison again like the benchmarking of ministers' salaries to top earning CEOs in the private sector.
Governments in the west provide basic needs and services to the people from their taxes. They have every justification or reason for raising taxes to cover such provisions including helping people who are unemployed or in old age/
In our case what would the government provide from the taxes? It simply charges market fees including basic needs like medical care and public housing so what does it do with taxes.
Our government simply has no right to tax people to the same extent as other countries as it provide little or no free services and are justified and entitled to do so.
In Singapore the government from day one had refused to provide welfare nor basic medical or transportation.
So Singapore government spent less on the people and has no justification to tax heavily or make hidden profits in public housing.
No wonder it is able to accumulate people's taxes direct and indirect into substantial surpluses which is not something created by the government but achieved through people's sweat and toils.
Over time our government has taken it for granted that they are the one who is talented and claim success for such surpluses.
So when it comes to rate of taxations etc, it is wrong for our government to want to increase GST to the level of the western taxes because there are not the same as our system - western governments provide or subsidize basic needs of the people whereas ours does not.
It is not correct to compare our retirements or taxation systems with the west/
It is not justifiable because their government taxes and recovers all possible costs of services from the people and accumulates fees and taxes and hidden profiteering from sale of lands etc so the people are entitled to have government using the surpluses finally built up by the people to benefit the people especially in their old age.
Singapore government does not appear to appreciate that the surpluses are saving of the people and the people should be entitled to draw on them for urgent and unexpected needs.
So stop talking as if people are asking for welfare from taxes. People are entitled to using their saving from non-provisions of services in the first place which were otherwise provided by government through normal taxes.
Our government cannot have the savings on provisions of services and yet want to raise taxes or recover more costs in normal government services. -
Hi, robert, that oxford mushroom is comparing durian with apple, not apple with apple. Lacks objectivity. Seems he is so supportive that people in Singapore work longer and older. Crap!Originally posted by robertteh:OM,
You are making a big mistake in comparing our retirements and medical cares or taxations with the western countries by selective comparison again like the benchmarking of ministers' salaries to top earning CEOs in the private sector.
Governments in the west provide basic needs and services to the people from their taxes. They have every justification or reason for raising taxes to cover such provisions including helping people who are unemployed or in old age/
In our case what would the government provide from the taxes? It simply charges market fees including basic needs like medical care and public housing so what does it do with taxes.
Our government simply has no right to tax people to the same extent as other countries as it provide little or no free services and are justified and entitled to do so.
In Singapore the government from day one had refused to provide welfare nor basic medical or transportation.
So Singapore government spent less on the people and has no justification to tax heavily or make hidden profits in public housing.
No wonder it is able to accumulate people's taxes direct and indirect into substantial surpluses which is not something created by the government but achieved through people's sweat and toils.
Over time our government has taken it for granted that they are the one who is talented and claim success for such surpluses.
So when it comes to rate of taxations etc, it is wrong for our government to want to increase GST to the level of the western taxes because there are not the same as our system - western governments provide or subsidize basic needs of the people whereas ours does not.
It is not correct to compare our retirements or taxation systems with the west/
It is not justifiable because their government taxes and recovers all possible costs of services from the people and accumulates fees and taxes and hidden profiteering from sale of lands etc so the people are entitled to have government using the surpluses finally built up by the people to benefit the people especially in their old age.
Singapore government does not appear to appreciate that the surpluses are saving of the people and the people should be entitled to draw on them for urgent and unexpected needs.
So stop talking as if people are asking for welfare from taxes. People are entitled to using their saving from non-provisions of services in the first place which were otherwise provided by government through normal taxes.
Our government cannot have the savings on provisions of services and yet want to raise taxes or recover more costs in normal government services.
-
Originally posted by Rock^Star:
My apologies for not being able to give immediate attention to your response, and regret that you have found my comments to be too personal for your comfort.
Posted by Atobe:
Are you slandering the Singapore Banks as cheats ?
You sure have a bad image of locals.
Or are you simply bitter from your own ineptitude and poor judgment with past investments ?
One bad apple do not spoil the entire cart. There may still hope for you.
Cool it cool it...........as expected, your replies are as robust and zealous as ever. However, you are getting a little personal.
That statement above surely comes from your own assumption? And you were trying to mock me in the latter statement.
The DBS website you have pointed out is a 3-months fixed deposit. At first sight, I thought it was a 10 years term. We are comparing bank rates with the CPF retirement account rates right? So perhaps some bank product of a longer tenure may make a better comparison.
It is peanuts for a bank to offer 6% per annum for a 3 months FD, try seeing if they offer 5 - 10 years. Once again, pls research more on bank products.
With this matter concerning alternative routes to CPF savings being important, more information should be made known, and I would like to continue with this part of our 'discussion' - even as you wish to close the debate on the other matters of contention.
It seems that your wide knowledge of bank practices exceed mine, surely you will be in a better position to advise everyone here if there are any banks that are willing to take on a 10 YEAR FIXED DEPOSIT at any fixed interest rate at any percentage higher than the 2.5% paid by CPF ?
As a point of interest, can any bank provide such high fixed interest rate for fixed deposits for any program longer than 6 months, when the prime rate itself is so volatile, and with immediate and future events in our World being so uncertain ?
If there are no 10 year Fixed Deposit that is comparable to the long term saving offered by CPF, is there anything to stop anyone of us to take on another 3 month term after the first fixed deposit period has lapsed ?
As long as the program is available for the next 10 years, are there anything in the fine prints that restrict the number of times that this 3 month term can be renewed within any given period ?
Even if this program offering 6% for a 3 month term deposit is no longer available, could we not find anothe program either with DBS or any other banks, or Unit Trusts, or other reputable Financial Institutions ?
Do not simply look at the small pixels in an image, neither should we only look at the immediate image before us, but we should also look beyond the image.
Images are meant to entice us, to affect our judgment, to influence our decision - but we should train our mind to look at the larger screen of the World that are behind the image being manipulated by others.
Be more discerning and circumspect to everything that are offered to our eyes. -
Originally posted by oxford mushroom:
While UK has the antiquated pension scheme that it is trying to find a suitable replacement, it still has some budget allocation to look after the ageing population.
Lots of welfare states in the West are trying to do that actually...the UK for one:
[b]"The government is deliberating over whether to outlaw company retirement ages and the CBI has mooted that the state pension age be raised to 70 by 2030..."
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4016969.stm)
The pensions of the elderly will not be enough given an aging population, with fewer young workers who pay taxes and the old living longer. British employers (who pay into the pension funds for their workers) are giving their older workers a choice: work longer or accept a lower pension upon retirement. [/b]
Unlike the Singapore Way, UK - should learn from China and Japan - in studying the role of Singapore's GIC and Temasek Holdings in managing surplus funds, BUT with a better purpose of using the funds to generate additional profits for the Government that it can use to support the Ageing UK Population.
So you have decided to recognise that 'The government derives its income from the people' ?
Singapore's elderly will become a burden on their families if they do not have enough retirement funds. Pushing them oon to the government is not a solution. The government derives its income from the people. Given an increasing proportion of the elderly in the population, that will place a heavy burden on the young tax payers and will discourage investment.
Have you forgotten that the Singapore Government also derives its income from the profits of investments made from the Singapore Budget Surplusses that have been accumulated into our Treasury but never used to benefit Singaporeans in any major ways ?
The amount of ADDITIONAL REVENUES that Temasek Holdings and GIC make has never been clearly reported, with the monies being split into various accounts of subsidiaries, and other government agencies; and with the accounting methods being questionable - that will clearly receive the reprimand from a top class auditor IF the same accounting methods are practised by a local privately owned company.
The heavy taxes placed on the young, middle-aged and the elderly tax payers are all encompassing, allowing the employed, partially employed, and the unemployed to be caught in the Tax net.
Rover's problems are due to its inability to move beyond its traditional way of building cars, they remain tied to their traditional pride of building quality cars, and refused to move into industrial scale production.
Don't forget why Rover at Longbridge had to close. Shanghai Automotive was almost ready to buy Rover and keep it running in UK....until they realized they would have to fill in the black hole in the pension fund for the older workers (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4410459.stm). In the end, the Chinese gave up the deal and left thousands of Rover workers jobless and with little in their pensions.
Bull to your assumption that Shanghai Automotive opt out due to their fear of a bottomless black hole in the pension fund for Rover's older workers.
How are you to explain that even as Shanghai Automotve did not get to own Rover, ANOTHER Mainland China Company - "NANJING AUTOMOBILE won the entire bidding exercise to takeover Rover " ?
Did Nanjing Automobile saw a shallower grey hole - instead of an exaggerated black hole - in the pension fund for Rover's older workers ?
If only you did not go on another round of your usual pompous hollow statements, I would have kept out of your way.
Are you a fake mushroom from Oxford, as somehow those named as 'lingzhi' seems to serve mankind better ?
What happened to the ideal of a Swiss Standard of Living ?
Retirement is enjoyable only if you have money to retire. Working hard and working longer is the only way to secure a comfortable retirement.
Was it a mere pipe dream ?
While the Swiss Employers' are calling for the Swiss Retirement Age to be raised to 66 years so as to resolve their pension problems, why is the Singapore Government expecting Singaporeans to work till pass 70 years when we do not have a pension fund to trouble the Singapore Government or the Employers ?
Has the CPF scheme failed its objective ?
At least the Swiss had the opportunity to a collective decision making process by way of a Referendum, and they rejected the idea of raising the Retirement Age. -
Originally posted by Atobe:My apologies for not being able to give immediate attention to your response, and regret that you have found my comments to be too personal for your comfort.
Atobe atobe........I accept your apologies.
It seems that your wide knowledge of bank practices exceed mine, surely you will be in a better position to advise everyone here if there are any banks that are willing to take on a 10 YEAR FIXED DEPOSIT at any fixed interest rate at any percentage higher than the 2.5% paid by CPF ?
My dad just bought an AIA fixed deposit. Interest is guaranteed, think it's 3.6% p.a.. Tenure is 10 years. Given the competitiveness of our local banking environment, surely it's not hard for other banks and insurance companies to come up with a similar plan? Such plans are only in the market for a limited period, once the trench has been achieved, the plan will be withdrawn.
Therefore, one has to be on the lookout for such plans. Another example was DBS offering the "Durian" plan. It advertised its rates as high as I think 22% but guess what? That's only the first year. Misleading, isn't it? The average rate p.a. worked out to be 2.8% for 7-8 years.
As a point of interest, can any bank provide such high fixed interest rate for fixed deposits for any program longer than 6 months, when the prime rate itself is so volatile, and with immediate and future events in our World being so uncertain ?
Please spare me the crap.
Another misleading statement that you wrote earlier:
The 4% interest that is payable annually on a retirement amount fixxed at a maximum sum of $120,000 for each Singaporean is neglible,
$120,000 is simply the minimum sum figure for the year 2013. Was that what you meant? It is not the maximum principal that CPF shall pay interest to as you indicated above. If a Singaporean decides to park his/her CPF money beyond the prevailing minimum sum to enjoy the 4% interest, it can be done.
And you mentioned 4% is negligible. Don't make me laugh. The compounding effect of 4% on a principal of $100,000.....do you even know what that means over the next 25 years? Do you even know how much payout per month?
You then mentioned:
when any Fund Manager will be able to multiply this amount at a higher rate of return on a wide array of program.
Come on, you are respected in Speaker's Corner. Stop any more of such baloney. Any fund manager can offer a higher rate of return? 2.5% highly possible but not necessarily 4%. If you are referring to unit trusts, it all depends on the market performance. Volatile funds may offer between 10-35% return p.a.but it is only for the adventurous. Funds of between 5-10% may suit those with a moderate risk appetite but then again, fluctuations are involved. Any ordinary Singaporean at age 55 with a balance of $50,000 - $200,000 (after CPF deductions for housing and children's education) would most probably fall into the risk averse categpry. CPF's guaranteed 4% interest payable at age 55 and beyond is a well suited plan here.
(Now read this carefully): I can't say the same for 2.5% though. I have told you before my stand on CPF interest rates. If you cannot do youself the justice of reading my posts carefully, then save all forumites the hassle of this debate.
If there are no 10 year Fixed Deposit that is comparable to the long term saving offered by CPF, is there anything to stop anyone of us to take on another 3 month term after the first fixed deposit period has lapsed ?
As long as the program is available for the next 10 years, are there anything in the fine prints that restrict the number of times that this 3 month term can be renewed within any given period ?
Even if this program offering 6% for a 3 month term deposit is no longer available, could we not find anothe program either with DBS or any other banks, or Unit Trusts, or other reputable Financial Institutions ?
Are you losing the plot that you can't come to the point? The above 3 paragraphs are harping on the same thing when you could have summarised all into one for easy reading? Do be more concise.
More bullshi.t from you again. Is the above feasible? Below are some of the reasons:
1) Every time you buy an investment/FD with a bank, hefty management fees are involved. If you buy plans like these 5 times a year, you can incur fees in the thousands.
2) A large number of Singaporeans are already so ignorant on matters of financial planning, what makes you think they will consciously monitor the market and invest accordingly? And it's not just the uncles and aunties on the streets, graduates even. How many of your relatives and friends do so?
3) Even if you park your money with a fund manager to save you the hassle, can one guarantee that he will act in one's best interest? Can you guard against him selling you a product, praising it to the skies only because the plans offer a high commission?
4) A lot of banks offer "attractive" plans but on the condition that you bring in money from other banks. An example is the 6% plan you broached. Moreover, investing in another bank means looking for another fund manager, not to mention that it will be a search for a reliable one too.
Do not simply look at the small pixels in an image, neither should we only look at the immediate image before us, but we should also look beyond the image.
Images are meant to entice us, to affect our judgment, to influence our decision - but we should train our mind to look at the larger screen of the World that are behind the image being manipulated by others.
Be more discerning and circumspect to everything that are offered to our eyes.
Atobe atobe......as usual, ever so keen to put me down. This very act of yours has clouded your judgement, preventing you from seeing matters in a clearer light. And I'm amazed that someone of your reasoning ability has to use sarcasm and unfounded assumptions to punch your points across everytime.
Refer below for some of it:
You wrote:
Stick to your coloring books and images, if you are handicapped with words too difficult to express your thoughts.
You also wrote:
Or are you simply bitter from your own ineptitude and poor judgment with past investments ?
One bad apple do not spoil the entire cart. There may still hope for you.
If you think that words like that can affect me, you are dead wrong. I suggest you base your arguments on solid ground and we engage on that basis.
Atobe atobe........ -
Originally posted by Rock^Star:
I will presume that you noticed my acknowledgement of your expertise on such matters will exceed mine - and you will probably know better in reading the fine prints to be gullible to bite any tantalising offer.
Original post by Atobe:
It seems that your wide knowledge of bank practices exceed mine, surely you will be in a better position to advise everyone here if there are any banks that are willing to take on a 10 YEAR FIXED DEPOSIT at any fixed interest rate at any percentage higher than the 2.5% paid by CPF ?
My dad just bought an AIA fixed deposit. Interest is guaranteed, think it's 3.6% p.a.. Tenure is 10 years. Given the competitiveness of our local banking environment, surely it's not hard for other banks and insurance companies to come up with a similar plan? Such plans are only in the market for a limited period, once the trench has been achieved, the plan will be withdrawn.
Therefore, one has to be on the lookout for such plans. Another example was DBS offering the "Durian" plan. It advertised its rates as high as I think 22% but guess what? That's only the first year. Misleading, isn't it? The average rate p.a. worked out to be 2.8% for 7-8 years.
Which part of the statement do you find it to be 'crappy' ?
As a point of interest, can any bank provide such high fixed interest rate for fixed deposits for any program longer than 6 months, when the prime rate itself is so volatile, and with immediate and future events in our World being so uncertain ?
Please spare me the crap.
Short sentence that do not develop your opinion beyond the printed words will invite the distortions that you resent.
Not too brilliant a Star, if you leave it to others to interprete when no one knows the workings inside a Rock^that imagine itself to be^ a Star ?
Have you any idea how efficient Fund Managers can be with the funds that they invest for their Employers ?
Another misleading statement that you wrote earlier:
The 4% interest that is payable annually on a retirement amount fixxed at a maximum sum of $120,000 for each Singaporean is neglible,
$120,000 is simply the minimum sum figure for the year 2013. Was that what you meant? It is not the maximum principal that CPF shall pay interest to as you indicated above. If a Singaporean decides to park his/her CPF money beyond the prevailing minimum sum to enjoy the 4% interest, it can be done.
And you mentioned 4% is negligible. Don't make me laugh. The compounding effect of 4% on a principal of $100,000.....do you even know what that means over the next 25 years? Do you even know how much payout per month?
Do you have the capacity to even imagine how much profit the Financial Institutions can make with our monies, so as to be able to pay out on your statement that "Volatile funds may offer between 10-35% return p.a.but it is only for the adventurous" - as shown below.
Even when the Financial Institution such as our CPF pay us a pittance of 2.5%, the amount that they earned is at least 10 times larger in volume.
Most financial institutions - of all shades and sizes - similarly make the same, if not more. -
continuation:
You seem to have some kind of telepathic ability to conduct surveys in this virtual world of the web.
You then mentioned:
when any Fund Manager will be able to multiply this amount at a higher rate of return on a wide array of program.
Come on, you are respected in Speaker's Corner. Stop any more of such baloney. Any fund manager can offer a higher rate of return? 2.5% highly possible but not necessarily 4%. If you are referring to unit trusts, it all depends on the market performance. Volatile funds may offer between 10-35% return p.a.but it is only for the adventurous. Funds of between 5-10% may suit those with a moderate risk appetite but then again, fluctuations are involved. Any ordinary Singaporean at age 55 with a balance of $50,000 - $200,000 (after CPF deductions for housing and children's education) would most probably fall into the risk averse categpry. CPF's guaranteed 4% interest payable at age 55 and beyond is a well suited plan here.
When did you conduct any polls on the respectability rating of anyone in this Speaker's Corner that you have assigned me the unsolicitted respect.
In any case, which part of my simple statements in the preceding paragraphs that you have found to be unbelieveably balloney ?
Did you not attempt to close this debate already in your last post on 4 May 2007 12.15 PM ?
(Now read this carefully): I can't say the same for 2.5% though. I have told you before my stand on CPF interest rates. If you cannot do youself the justice of reading my posts carefully, then save all forumites the hassle of this debate.
Now I am wondering why are you opening your old wounds.
If there are no 10 year Fixed Deposit that is comparable to the long term saving offered by CPF, is there anything to stop anyone of us to take on another 3 month term after the first fixed deposit period has lapsed ?
As long as the program is available for the next 10 years, are there anything in the fine prints that restrict the number of times that this 3 month term can be renewed within any given period ?
Even if this program offering 6% for a 3 month term deposit is no longer available, could we not find anothe program either with DBS or any other banks, or Unit Trusts, or other reputable Financial Institutions ?
Are you losing the plot that you can't come to the point? The above 3 paragraphs are harping on the same thing when you could have summarised all into one for easy reading? Do be more concise.
More bullshi.t from you again. Is the above feasible? Below are some of the reasons:
1) Every time you buy an investment/FD with a bank, hefty management fees are involved. If you buy plans like these 5 times a year, you can incur fees in the thousands.
2) A large number of Singaporeans are already so ignorant on matters of financial planning, what makes you think they will consciously monitor the market and invest accordingly? And it's not just the uncles and aunties on the streets, graduates even. How many of your relatives and friends do so?
3) Even if you park your money with a fund manager to save you the hassle, can one guarantee that he will act in one's best interest? Can you guard against him selling you a product, praising it to the skies only because the plans offer a high commission?
4) A lot of banks offer "attractive" plans but on the condition that you bring in money from other banks. An example is the 6% plan you broached. Moreover, investing in another bank means looking for another fund manager, not to mention that it will be a search for a reliable one too.
1) Now you are exaggerating with your statement that is loaded with nothing but hot air that makes too much thunder clap sound - but you are using it on the wrong guy.
Before you accuse me of being too robust with you, I suggest that you do a reality check with your statement that thousands of dollars have to be paid for management fees to renew Fixed Deposits ( FD ).
If your Fixed Deposit portfolio is $1,000,000 - are you going to crap with the bank over the management fees of $1000 for each renewal ?
You must be in the small league if you are going to be bothered on this trivial amount - only 0.001%, while 1% is only $10,000.
2) Do you think that those with monies are not educated, or are foolish ?
Even if they are ignorant, this does not mean that they do not know how to ask, and attempt to clear all doubts before parting with their monies.
3) Commissions ? Are commissions paid to the Officer who assist in the opening of Fixed Deposits ? Which banks are you working with that pays you commissions for the deposits made ?
4) Banks are here to make money by being a Legitimate Money Lender, and in order to do so, they must attract your money with tantalising programs.
It is for you to be smarter and not to fall into their web. -
continuation
The most annoying posts that anyone has to put up with are those that are hollow condescending stuff that resemble the Cream Puff - full of puff and no cream'.
Do not simply look at the small pixels in an image, neither should we only look at the immediate image before us, but we should also look beyond the image.
Images are meant to entice us, to affect our judgment, to influence our decision - but we should train our mind to look at the larger screen of the World that are behind the image being manipulated by others.
Be more discerning and circumspect to everything that are offered to our eyes.
Atobe atobe......as usual, ever so keen to put me down. This very act of yours has clouded your judgement, preventing you from seeing matters in a clearer light. And I'm amazed that someone of your reasoning ability has to use sarcasm and unfounded assumptions to punch your points across everytime.
Sarcasm is used to bring some senses to one who believes himself to be a Rock^Star and entitled to a wide latitude of being offensively petulant, with remarks and statements that are no better then to scare others with all the pompous display of thunder and fury.
Unfortunately, rocks cannot hope to be a shooting star - it is simply impetuous to defy the Laws of Gravity.
As I have said earlier, I am surprised you are prepared to open up your old wounds, considering the robust treatment that you imagined had come from me.
Refer below for some of it:
You wrote:
Stick to your coloring books and images, if you are handicapped with words too difficult to express your thoughts.
You also wrote:
Or are you simply bitter from your own ineptitude and poor judgment with past investments ?
One bad apple do not spoil the entire cart. There may still hope for you.
If you think that words like that can affect me, you are dead wrong. I suggest you base your arguments on solid ground and we engage on that basis.
Atobe atobe........
If you are not affected by what had transpired, why are we back here again - when you did mention in your response on 4 May 2007 12.15 PM the following :
Surprisingly, you left out your trademarked blue in your response.
Dear Atobe,
after 3-4 rounds of debate, I still see no outcome .............
I do not intend to continue this debate further as it is going nowhere.
Was there a change of your position after a lapse of 48 hours, and you found that this discussion can go somewhere ?
Or were you counting sheeps at night, but see them in blues tripping over the darkred fences ?
All the same, you are not as bad as Oxford Mushroom, although you have a tendency to use his style of posting - "all sound and fury, flash and thunder" hoping to impress but cannot defend a position on any issue; and yet will attempt to be controversial.
Most of the time you were honest with your views and opinions, and I had respected them all the way from Page 1 and 2 of this thread; until I detect a flaw with your uncertain flip-flop remarks concerning CSJ being a martyr, and you tried to carry off with some false condescending views on this and other points in my response - then I have little choice but to return you the flavor that you dished out.
C'est la Vie -
Dear Rock^Star
You should try calling DBS Hotline at 1-800-222 2222 to get the necessary information.
They confirmed that for Deposits of a minimum sum of $1000 for a period of anywhere from ONE Month to 24 Months - there are NO fees payable.
The only condition is that withdrawals will have to be made only on maturity date, or a penalty will have to be paid.
When a program has matured, the Bank will pay out in cash or Banker's Order; or one can start another Fixxed Deposit program with no additional costs.
The interest earned from the previous Fixxed Deposit can either be withdrawn on added onto the Principal Sum for the new FD program.
High cost of Management Fees, Bank Charges ? Where did you get your information from ?
Were you referring to Unit Trusts, or some other investment programs ? -
If the interest rate of CPF always move in tandem with inflation, housing cost must have been given a very small weight considering how much property prices have went up. The govt should give the money back to the citizens as bonus payouts just like insurance company.Originally posted by Gazelle:The interest rate of CPF will always move in tandem with inflation rate.
By forcing the citizens to save at 2.6% interest, the citizens are deprived of using the funds for other purposes such as investing in stocks, starting a business etc.
Plus why should you care how the government invest their money if they can guarantee a return of investment which is higher than bank saving interest rate?
For those who understand the effect of compounding, they would know what a big difference a slight increase rate makes to savings
For a person who saves $100 monthly at2.6% interest over 30 years he would have $54444.57
For a person who saves $100 monthly at 9% returns over 30 years he would have $183074.34!
For a person who saves $100 monthly at 12% returns over 30 years he would have $349496.41!!
If a person bought Singapore stocks with a savings plan, how much would he had?
No, but because of the failure to have a superannuation system like Australia, the older generation have missed on lots of potential return from investing in stocks. Its only in recent years, the money was allowed to be used for investments. If not the govt can still tap on cheap capital at the expense of the citizens and pretend it got no responsibilities towards the lack of retirement funds among the elderly. I guess when the PAP says humans are their only resource, they mean leeching on citizens but pretending they have no responsibilities towards them after they have sucked them dry, after milking the cheap source of capital from the citizens.
Do you have reason to believe that Singaporeans will be better prepared for retirement if there is no CPF?