13% of students who borrowed from parents' CPF accounts have
-
I double that. If i were to do that, unless i'm seriously interested in my education, barring any other distractions, my parents or grandparents will still kill me.Originally posted by jianfish9:Well, you can't borrow from your cpf to take a loan for overseas studies. So probably the maximum is only 20k. I wonder how long can you last if you so desperately need the 20k your child owns you.
You may say young people nowadays should go out and work to be financially independent but I rather my kid not have to go work for $7/hr for 2years after having to serve at 50cents/hour during his NS.
Perhaps some people should encourage their kid to do so to avoid being hypocritical.
We have the next 30-40yrs to work to be financially independent and secure. Getting a head start is so important nowadays.
If the govt is so concerned about helping us save that 20k, perhaps they ought to considering sponsoring 100students 10k each with their million dollar salaries or just lower the price of HDB flats by 20k across the board.
True, i may have gotton 2 years of working experience, but that's not going to help me after i get my diploma, for either the work done will be different, or i may be even going into a different field of work.
No way i'm going to take a bank loan and come out with debts just so i can make a little more after poly. Not to mention, IF i take a bank loan just for my poly, i'm going to be working even longer after i get my dip, Just to return the loan.
We really lose out, cause of the 2 years (some of you may be able to work part time, but try being in an infantry unit or one that stays in mon-fri), and age.
Even now, would you rather hire a 26 year old uni grad? or a 32 year old uni grad? Considering both are fresh grads.
The way the system works now in Singapore isn't very advantageous to us Singaporeans... and this CPF thing really needs to be revised... If only they were actually listening to us talking in here. -
Isn't it expected of parents to provide the necessities to their kids? I mean you may call me a spoilt brat, but I'm 20 this year and I'm proud to say when I work PT, not only do I give my parents 10% of my pay to each, I've also bought the refrigerator and washing machine that we use at home. If the govt. is worried about kids not paying, its because the kids are spoilt by their parents. My parents do not have such problems with me...because they gave me the right values. And taking care of them is Tian Jing Di Yi de shi.
-
The 13% who don't pay back- maybe they have rich parents who don't need them to pay back.
I will glady let my kids use my CPF cos I cannot take it out till 62 (by that time, I may not be around).
I have savings so don't expect them to pay me back.
If they do well & have bright future, I am happy. -
x2.Originally posted by gerrykoh:The 13% who don't pay back- maybe they have rich parents who don't need them to pay back.
I will glady let my kids use my CPF cos I cannot take it out till 62 (by that time, I may not be around).
I have savings so don't expect them to pay me back.
If they do well & have bright future, I am happy. -
That is another matter altogether....when you are broke and desperate.Originally posted by dragg:do i need to see from their perspective when it comes to my own hard-earned money?
why do i need their permission as to when i can use my own hard-earned money?
you are broke and desperate but cant use any of your cpf funds. is that right?
you borrow from a bank and pay sky high interest when you could have actually use your own cpf money? is that right?
Surely the CPF ruling should be relaxed under such circumstances. -
Originally posted by walesa:
Using the robber hypothesis that you have provided, I wouldn't have considered the govt as one until they have recently decided to raise the CPF retirement age.
With the greatest respect, would you consider a robber who robs a million bucks from someone and returns him a thousand as having good intentions?
After all, isn't all this criminal fund conveniently used as an excuse for the regime to absolve itself of responsibility and obligations to its citizenry - when you further consider this as a viable source of income for their investment purposes (whose returns hardly benefit the "shareholders" to begin with), what could be better?
In essence, how different is this whole scheme of controlling the folks' hard-earned money [b]by force for their own personal use from money-laundering? The only difference between illegitimate money-launderers and those who are empowered to do so is the latter having the backing of some warped Constitution which would be unconstitutional in any part of the free world.
As a matter of fact, if the average Joe had the backing of the Constitution to run such scams, I'm sure everyone would be more than happy to exercise such "good intentions".[/b]
Forced savings, in my opinion is a must for many Singaporeans who are neither financially nor investment savvy.
However, if they decide to raise the retirement age instead of acknowledging that it is actually the high HDB prices that eat into CPF retirement funds, then something must be fundamentally very wrong with this govt's mentality. -
Seriously speaking by raising the age until 65 to get the minimal money, PR will still be attacted to stay in Spore?Originally posted by Rock^Star:Using the robber hypothesis that you have provided, I wouldn't have considered the govt as one until they have recently decided to raise the CPF retirement age.
Forced savings, in my opinion is a must for many Singaporeans who are neither financially nor investment savvy.
However, if they decide to raise the retirement age instead of acknowledging that it is actually the high HDB prices that eat into CPF retirement funds, then something must be fundamentally very wrong with this govt's mentality. -
i mean i studied 3 years in uni. in 3 years there r altogether 6 sem.Originally posted by browniebaobao:fwah.. u repeated how many sems?
-
Most of the people not enough $$$ to survive the old age.
Due to the standard and cost of living in Singapore.
It might be difficult for the son to support own family and parents too.
So we should not touch parents $$$.Originally posted by Mat Toro:I worked part time thru university and earned fees and pocket money. Took only $2000 from family for three years.
i think parent's retirement moeny shld not be touched because most people do not have enough for retirement. -
Fully agree, children can use their parents' money for education, CPF or cash, but must repay, whether back to CPF or not is immaterial. especially parents who did not have the chance to go to u, or couldn't make it to u, bringing us up are already quite a task. If we cannot make their life better, we should at least not touch their money, no matter how willing they are to give everything to us.Originally posted by CPTMiller:Most of the people not enough $$$ to survive the old age.
Due to the standard and cost of living in Singapore.
It might be difficult for the son to supper own family and parents too.
So we should not touch parents $$$.
Money is one thing, time to spend with our parents is another important thing. The worse are those who just put their aged parents in old folk home, thinking that by giving money, they have done their job.
This problem occurs not only in Singapore, but everywhere, especially major cities. We can, and should fight for our government to reduce costs, especially medical costs for illnesses such as dementia...but ultimately we, the children should find ways to take care of our parents. -
That's just your take and you perceive it to be right. And that's precisely what's so wrong with this - and other totalitarian regimes for that matter - regime where self-serving despots and tyrants legislate flawed policies. The bottomline is : what business is it of the state's to interfere in what is essentially a family matter and money belonging to family members? After all, if you had a family dispute on the disbursement of inheritance to various family members and this matter needs resolving in a court of law, you aren't counting on the state to bear the legal costs (for both sides) of the entire proceedings, are you? In which case, why then should the state be allowed to selectively interfere in what are effectively family matters? I doubt you need Einstein's IQ to work out the ulterior motive behind the modus operandi of this regime's selective interference which isn't all that alien from that of other organised crime syndicates.Originally posted by Rock^Star:Using the robber hypothesis that you have provided, I wouldn't have considered the govt as one until they have recently decided to raise the CPF retirement age.
Forced savings, in my opinion is a must for many Singaporeans who are neither financially nor investment savvy.
However, if they decide to raise the retirement age instead of acknowledging that it is actually the high HDB prices that eat into CPF retirement funds, then something must be fundamentally very wrong with this govt's mentality.
Technically, if I may use another example, the logic of the whole debate doesn't deviate too much from illegal moneylenders - after all, would you not agree it'd only be reasonable in principle that the debtor returns what he has borrowed from his creditor? So why should non-institutionalised moneylenders be outlawed?
If your argument stems from this regime deservedly having the right to force a debtor to return the borrower with funds belonging to the borrower, shouldn't this regime abet illegal moneylenders in their quest to recover their loans instead of outlawing them? As far as the practice and principle go, they're effectively the same! -
The govt should not give so many scholarships to FT & rich MIW's kids, instead should give to the citizens. Then the burden on the parents won't be so great.
Uni fees keep increasing, getting very expensive. The young grads have to pay off study loan, where got money to get married & buy hse?
As a parent, I'll do everything to help my kids get uni edn.
Even if I have cash, I won't use it to pay off my housing loan or kid's school fees cos I still have $$ in CPF. The govt keeps holding back our money.
Won't get to enjoy it, might as well give to my kids. -
what is the difference?Originally posted by CPTMiller:Most of the people not enough $$$ to survive the old age.
Due to the standard and cost of living in Singapore.
It might be difficult for the son to support own family and parents too.
So we should not touch parents $$$.
if you dont get it from your parents you have to get it from somewhere. a bank loan will only incur interest.
just pay your parents back if you feel bad about using their retirement funds. -
if possible, i dun want that to happen to my dotter/sonOriginally posted by boka:Exactly.
My uncle who's a westerner,her daughter worked almost everyday while in uni to pay for her fees.
i was struggling... working 7 days a week while doing my diploma.
the struggling part came frm projects.
i have classmates who are lucky enuff to be born in to a well-to-do family. when the projects come, they stop. i can't. if i stop i got nth to eat, no money to go to sch n all that.
1 even commanded me to quit my job until the project is over, so that i could concentrate better on my proj. -
add on: i took a bank loan, and a nyp edu loan [after i can't cope with the b!tches and my dwindling income]
i had 2k savings when i entered poly. lost all of them when the new sem start @##@%$#^$
pay sch fees n text n notes... left a few hundred nia
i didn ask mama to pay for me [heng ar... if nt, nw she still renting place to stay] -
question is, do you want your kids to repay you? if not, there is no problem.Originally posted by gerrykoh:Won't get to enjoy it, might as well give to my kids.
-
Originally posted by walesa:
If you perceive them as robbers, so be it. I have never disputed that, just that I have never considered them one until the recent decision to up retirement age and remove the option to withdraw at 55.
That's just your take and you perceive it to be right. And that's precisely what's so wrong with this - and other totalitarian regimes for that matter - regime where self-serving despots and tyrants legislate flawed policies. The bottomline is : what business is it of the state's to interfere in what is essentially a family matter and money belonging to family members? After all, if you had a family dispute on the disbursement of inheritance to various family members and this matter needs resolving in a court of law, you aren't counting on the state to bear the legal costs (for both sides) of the entire proceedings, are you? In which case, why then should the state be allowed to selectively interfere in what are effectively family matters? I doubt you need Einstein's IQ to work out the ulterior motive behind the modus operandi of this regime's selective interference which isn't all that alien from that of other organised crime syndicates.
Technically, if I may use another example, the logic of the whole debate doesn't deviate too much from illegal moneylenders - after all, would you not agree it'd only be reasonable in principle that the debtor returns what he has borrowed from his creditor? So why should non-institutionalised moneylenders be outlawed?
If your argument stems from this regime [b]deservedly having the right to force a debtor to return the borrower with funds belonging to the borrower, shouldn't this regime abet illegal moneylenders in their quest to recover their loans instead of outlawing them? As far as the practice and principle go, they're effectively the same![/b]
'Robbers' is too strong a word for me but then again, I respect your usage of it because you justify it.
You perceive this 'forced savings' system as robbery. I do not dispute that either. The govt definitely hoards this money for their usage.
However, imagine if Singaporeans do not have such a system, would they be financially and investment savvy enough to save enough for retirement? Some may but my gut feel is that many will not.
Have you noticed that there are many out there who earn, save and spend, then repeat this vicious cycle for years? (I was an ex- financial planner)
Then this will create social ills and the govt has reason to be worried. -
Poor performer only start at 30,Originally posted by tomsss:go work lah teenagers! what study uni uni uni... end up only start to find work at like 30 years old plus or something
Normally guy graudate at 25 and female graduate at 23
Come on take the Jc route (which is cheaper than POLY) -
The point I raised, in accordance with the spirit of this very thread, stems from a civil liberties issue where this is essentially the question that begs answering, "Why should the state be allowed to interfere with what is effectively a personal matter?"Originally posted by Rock^Star:If you perceive them as robbers, so be it. I have never disputed that, just that I have never considered them one until the recent decision to up retirement age and remove the option to withdraw at 55.
'Robbers' is too strong a word for me but then again, I respect your usage of it because you justify it.
You perceive this 'forced savings' system as robbery. I do not dispute that either. The govt definitely hoards this money for their usage.
However, imagine if Singaporeans do not have such a system, would they be financially and investment savvy enough to save enough for retirement? Some may but my gut feel is that many will not.
Have you noticed that there are many out there who earn, save and spend, then repeat this vicious cycle for years? (I was an ex- financial planner)
Then this will create social ills and the govt has reason to be worried.
If you read through most responses in this thread, I guess it would be fair to say a vast majority of those who have disputed the issue are essentially arguing over the question I pose above. And very rightly so.
This is not an isolated issue, obviously. Other issues infringing on the similar civil liberties issue would include the nonsense known as HOTA.
Maybe civil liberties may mean nothing to you and you're perfectly entitled to worry for the irresponsible or the financially less savvy. That said, the crux of the issue stems from why should a despotic regime (and there's obviously a very good reason why this regime is known as a "nanny state" to the rest of the world) be meddling and interfering in personal affairs across the board such that their measures would effectively also restrict the rights of those whom they shouldn't be meddling with? (Would you find it right and reasonable that billionaires - whether the billionaires would need to use their CPF money is another matter - should also be subjected to such mindless legislations?)
In numerous societies, this issue is non-existent because of the social security and basic safety net in place to look after the marginalised - that, according to this regime, is called "welfare" and is regarded as detrimental to the economic progress (or rather, profiteering) of this regime.
Even if you weren't an advocate of providing some form of basic social safety net and endorse "welfarism", you can't disagree with the fact that this problem could actually be addressed in other ways (and ironically, some of the countries with the greatest safety nets are actually also the most prosperous on the planet, debunking the myth this regime churns out habitually) besides having need to interfere and regulate money belonging to individuals, can you? -
very well said.Originally posted by walesa:The point I raised, in accordance with the spirit of this very thread, stems from a civil liberties issue where this is essentially the question that begs answering, "Why should the state be allowed to interfere with what is effectively a personal matter?"
If you read through most responses in this thread, I guess it would be fair to say a vast majority of those who have disputed the issue are essentially arguing over the question I pose above. And very rightly so.
This is not an isolated issue, obviously. Other issues infringing on the similar civil liberties issue would include the nonsense known as HOTA.
Maybe civil liberties may mean nothing to you and you're perfectly entitled to worry for the irresponsible or the financially less savvy. That said, the crux of the issue stems from why should a despotic regime (and there's obviously a very good reason why this regime is known as a "nanny state" to the rest of the world) be meddling and interfering in personal affairs across the board such that their measures would effectively also restrict the rights of those whom they shouldn't be meddling with? (Would you find it right and reasonable that billionaires - whether the billionaires would need to use their CPF money is another matter - should also be subjected to such mindless legislations?)
In numerous societies, this issue is non-existent because of the social security and basic safety net in place to look after the marginalised - that, according to this regime, is called "welfare" and is regarded as detrimental to the economic progress (or rather, profiteering) of this regime.
Even if you weren't an advocate of providing some form of basic social safety net and endorse "welfarism", you can't disagree with the fact that this problem could actually be addressed in other ways (and ironically, some of the countries with the greatest safety nets are actually also the most prosperous on the planet, debunking the myth this regime churns out habitually) besides having need to interfere and regulate money belonging to individuals, can you?
i fully agree. -
If the Singapore govt chooses to have a tax system like these countries and then provide an impregnable safety net, why not?Originally posted by walesa:Even if you weren't an advocate of providing some form of basic social safety net and endorse "welfarism", you can't disagree with the fact that this problem could actually be addressed in other ways (and ironically, some of the countries with the greatest safety nets are actually also the most prosperous on the planet, debunking the myth this regime churns out habitually) besides having need to interfere and regulate money belonging to individuals, can you?
However, since they have decided on this current tax system, forced savings is a must. Unless they are voted out one day. -
Simple equation, you want an alternative system, vote them out and don't look back.Originally posted by Rock^Star:If the Singapore govt chooses to have a tax system like these countries and then provide an impregnable safety net, why not?
However, since they have decided on this current tax system, forced savings is a must. Unless they are voted out one day.
Hard part is marketing this idea of an alternative Singapore to the entire nation. -
You mean an entire nation of cowards and too myopic to see the alternative.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Simple equation, you want an alternative system, vote them out and don't look back.
Hard part is marketing this idea of an alternative Singapore to the entire nation.
And the Philip Yeo once accused his distractors as myopic. -
what they trying to say ar?? c'mon la. with o'lvl cert, we cant even earn much, of cauz nid borrow money from parents la..
now they dun wan to let cpf be used for educational purpose. wtf -
Personally, I think briefly and to the point;
.. since the problem is the Government, it will be IMPOSSIBLE for them to see any problems because they themselves ARE the problem...
Hence, the situation for locals will just simply rot further....
and then, as I always say; WTF, can we all do about it/them?
Are there enough of us who dares to REVOLT?
I think there is only ONE who dares - CSJ... crazy and foolhardy as he may seem, he is THE only one...