Government may make buying annuity compulsory
-
I am sure those who can read and write will agree with you, however we have to take note that many low income people are post 50 years old, many are without proper education and have no clue about what financial product there are in the market to help their retirement.Originally posted by sir sickolot II:the plan does have it's potential merits, but it's sad when they also want to make plans compulsory, opt-out kinda schemes. You always wonder how much cut the govt gets doing such things.
Where is the choice in dealing with our own affairs? In dealing with our own personal finances?
It has indeed come to this pretty sorry state. -
Congrats, you can get out! I am stuck here! Trying very hard to make ends meet!Originally posted by HyperFocal:That's quite some cursing....
But I'm afraid Heaven's timing does not serves our immediate need for vindication...
I must say that I'm in a way thankful to PAP for driving me out of SG... now at least I'm going out further afield to the world, to see more, learn more, earn more, live fuller, and never returning... -
That is my assessment. No need for figures for such expressions.Originally posted by HyperFocal:Go get some figures, and drop the name-callings...
So what if the figure is 1,278,567 or 1,278,568. what difference does it make.
What name callings? -
Wow, then it is not credible!!Originally posted by mancha:That is my assessment. No need for figures for such expressions.
So what if the figure is 1,278,567 or 1,278,568. what difference does it make.
What name callings?
-
CPF has been very useful for me, especially for someone who dont have the habit of saving for the future. e.g when I bought my first property, my CPF monies came in handy. Or else, I would have to empty my saving account just to pay off the downpayment.Originally posted by HyperFocal:Thankful?
How many? -
Originally posted by kilua:
A perpetuity (giving you an annuity as long as you are still alive) might not be worthwhile if you have a family history where family members don't live past 80.
I say its a crazy scheme because it doesnt consider if [b]EVERY Singaporean needs an annuity. For those who have already done their planning, annuity actually erodes their returns.
What about those who have already fully paid up their flat and are receiving rental from the flat? How would an annuity help them?
I am sure these people would be thankful to PAP in future for locking up their money when they already have enough.[/b]
An annuity might be better because you get to enjoy $700 instead of $500 every month.
The life expectancy of Singaporeans are around 78-82, females on average live longer than males for about 4 years.
So it's more worthwhile for women to sign up for the perpetuity.
Whether you buy annuities or perpetuities, it's really none of the government's business, because they are not paying for it. At the end of the day, you have to pay from your own pocket.
The reason they are coming up with this policy is, they don't want to be responsible for this scenario should it materialise in the future. So they are throwing the ball into your court first. -
Just ask ...
if your pay is $500 it is enough for one month when you reach 62 after 30 year++?
the living standard increase will that pay enough ??
if your pay more than 500 ? will annuity pay u ? -
CPF is only good for stupid people like you (ooops, sorry for my honesty, it might have hurt your feelings), who has no financial intelligence or any semblance of intelligence. For the average person, they should be able to make more returns than the 2.5% p.a. given by the CPF Board.Originally posted by Gazelle:CPF has been very useful for me, especially for someone who dont have the habit of saving for the future. e.g when I bought my first property, my CPF monies came in handy. Or else, I would have to empty my saving account just to pay off the downpayment. -
Lim Boon Heng's comments are not aligned with market conditions.Originally posted by maurizio13:The daft Minister don't know the difference between an annuity and a perpetuity.
Even teachers applicable for their pension scheme op for the one-off lump sum instead of the monthly pension. Since most people have no idea how long they will live for, it makes far more sense to accept the larger payoff to offset the number of years remaining.
The govt really should stop making these 'compulsory' directives. It's not helping our people realise their goal of independent thinking. Rather than spoonfeed us, with improved education already made compulsory, they should ease off the throttle and allow us the freedom to decide unilaterally.
A bad decision in this case cannot possibly be blamed on the govt, but rather a plain ignorance. The best approach if they insist on implementing such a scheme is to retain the 'op-out' approach. -
MODERATOR, as you can see this useless pric.k is trying to make himself look smart by talking so much rubbish.Originally posted by maurizio13:CPF is only good for stupid people like you (ooops, sorry for my honesty, it might have hurt your feelings), who has no financial intelligence or any semblance of intelligence. For the average person, they should be able to make more returns than the 2.5% p.a. given by the CPF Board.
1) We are talking about CPF usefulness, not returns of your personal investment.
2) Did I say that the returns of personal investment is below 2.5%?
3) This SHEEP pric.k is so bloody dumb that he actually mix saving habit to investment habit.
M13, you want to talk about investment? why dont we start by you telling us what is your average return on investment for the past 4 to 5 years? -
Gazelle, so are you all ready to pay for annuity? YOu must have loved your PAP for thinking of this plan huh!!!!
-
Having CPF is not necessary a good thing, especially if it's use has been restricted. If you can't find a job, you don't have money, but you can't use your CPF money. What's the point of having future money, when you are having present survival issues, which threatens you from collecting your future CPF money.Originally posted by BillyBong:Lim Boon Heng's comments are not aligned with market conditions.
Even teachers applicable for their pension scheme op for the one-off lump sum instead of the monthly pension. Since most people have no idea how long they will live for, it makes far more sense to accept the larger payoff to offset the number of years remaining.
The govt really should stop making these 'compulsory' directives. It's not helping our people realise their goal of independent thinking. Rather than spoonfeed us, with improved education already made compulsory, they should ease off the throttle and allow us the freedom to decide unilaterally.
A bad decision in this case cannot possibly be blamed on the govt, but rather a plain ignorance. The best approach if they insist on implementing such a scheme is to retain the 'op-out' approach.
It's better to let the individual decide on what their investments should be themselves. Better to let the individual choose if they want to be in the CPF scheme (for individuals like Gazelle and lionnoisy) or they want to invest the money themselves. -
triple 6 spells devil...Originally posted by Manager433:Thank you 66.6
bad omen... -
i am not suan-ing you...Originally posted by qlqq9:If they make it compulsory, they will give you no excuse to say no. Just wonder Is PAP in as our govt just to use $$$ to solve problems. If so, this is so simple job, we don't need any highly educated people to do the job, so we don't need them!
Hey, 66.6% voters, please put your brain to good use and vote wisely in the next election.
i am on your side...
but.......... do we have a better choice???
haiz... we are frogs in a hot boiling water.... dying soon liao, only we don't know -
The best choice is vote them out of power. WE have to be brave to give the opposition the chance. AFterall, Singapore does not belong solely to PAP. PAP as they are - pay and pay, that is why they are making us pay and pay more and more.Originally posted by Seven_Dragon:i am not suan-ing you...
i am on your side...
but.......... do we have a better choice???
haiz... we are frogs in a hot boiling water.... dying soon liao, only we don't know
PAP has lost credibility through their own doings! -
Oh yeah, 666 is satan's number. And bible talks about the beast, so who is the beast in Singapore's context?Originally posted by Seven_Dragon:triple 6 spells devil...
bad omen... -
29% of the funds have been cheap loans to the CPF board, much of it probably the lower income group. I wonder how many percent of Singaporeans are lending money to the govt at cheap CPF rates.Originally posted by maurizio13:Having CPF is not necessary a good thing, especially if it's use has been restricted. If you can't find a job, you don't have money, but you can't use your CPF money. What's the point of having future money, when you are having present survival issues, which threatens you from collecting your future CPF money.
It's better to let the individual decide on what their investments should be themselves. Better to let the individual choose if they want to be in the CPF scheme (for individuals like Gazelle and lionnoisy) or they want to invest the money themselves.
http://knowledge.smu.edu.sg/index.cfm?fa=viewfeature&id=1080
According to Koh, Mitchell, Tanuwidjaja, and Fong (“Investment Patterns in Singapore’s Central Provident Fund”), the bulk of cumulative CPF contributions (44%) have gone to the purchase of residential and investment properties. A sizeable portion (29%) remains in the OA and SA accounts, earning guaranteed interest, while only 10% of the funds were invested in capital market instruments permitted under the CPFIS .
Of the (10%) funds that were invested (S$27.9 billion), 67% went into insurance policies such as annuities, endowment policies and ILPs, 20% in equity and loan stocks, while only 12% was in unit trusts , collective insurance schemes offered by fund management companies.
The govt should admit the failure of the CPF as a retirement scheme with most of the funds stuck in low CPF board rates or lower yielding insurance schemes. -
The CPF balance if any can be received by beneficiary if the retireee dies.
Can annuity owners name a beneficiary? If the policy owner does not live long enough to benefit from it, what will happens to the principal and earnings at his death
1)before retirement?
2)after retirement.? -
For perpetuities (life annuities), if the insured dies early, the insurance companies benefits, if the insured lives to maybe 95 then the insured benefits.Originally posted by googoomuck:The CPF balance if any can be received by beneficiary if the retireee dies.
Can annuity owners name a beneficiary? If the policy owner does not live long enough to benefit from it, what will happens to the principal and earnings at his death
1)before retirement?
2)after retirement.?
Let's say:
Principal = $120,000
Period = 20 years
Payment = $8,400 a year ($700 a month)
Punch it into my financial calculator:
The implied interest rate = 3.44...% p.a.
Use the implied interest rate to find the period where both annuities and perpetuities (life annuities) will be equivalent.
Interest = 3.44...% p.a.
Principal = $120,000
Payment = $6,000 a year ($500 a month)
Punch it into my financial calculator:
Period = 34.5 years.
This is just a rough calculation, but given the figures by the Minister, a person would have to live another 34.5 years after 62 years (when minimum sum withdrawal is possible) in order to breakeven from the perpetuity (life annuity). -
Let's wait and see if that Lim Boon Heng will address the above. Sad, sad, sad!Originally posted by googoomuck:The CPF balance if any can be received by beneficiary if the retireee dies.
Can annuity owners name a beneficiary? If the policy owner does not live long enough to benefit from it, what will happens to the principal and earnings at his death
1)before retirement?
2)after retirement.? -
interesting, never did think of that. suppose a guy buys an annuity but unfortunately passes on in the next 10 years... so i do wonder what happens to the annuity? Will the scheme change cause if i'm not wrong there is no beneficiary for annnuity?Originally posted by googoomuck:The CPF balance if any can be received by beneficiary if the retireee dies.
Can annuity owners name a beneficiary? If the policy owner does not live long enough to benefit from it, what will happens to the principal and earnings at his death
1)before retirement?
2)after retirement.? -
s'poreans have short memories...Originally posted by qlqq9:The best choice is vote them out of power. WE have to be brave to give the opposition the chance. AFterall, Singapore does not belong solely to PAP. PAP as they are - pay and pay, that is why they are making us pay and pay more and more.
PAP has lost credibility through their own doings!
now they complain complain complain...
when election comes, gahmen gives them some $$$, s'poreans will vote for them again...
don't believe, you see loh...
haiz... -
partly because they are greedy and they think short term. I heard old people saying that where in the world can they find gahmen who give them $$$. OMG, in my heart I was telling myself, they are just frogs in the well. They are not aware that the western countries govt give the old folks money to support them. Over here, they give $$$$ when election is near to lure them to vote for them the thunderevils.Originally posted by Seven_Dragon:s'poreans have short memories...
now they complain complain complain...
when election comes, gahmen gives them some $$$, s'poreans will vote for them again...
don't believe, you see loh...
haiz...
Now, with this buying of annuity, let's see if people are still so naive and greedy. -
anybody has the statistics of the number of people in Singapore dying at the various ages? ICA website don't have them
-
You are making a very unrealistic and naive assumption that if there is no CPF and the money was given to you in cash, you will be saving it.Originally posted by maurizio13:Having CPF is not necessary a good thing, especially if it's use has been restricted. If you can't find a job, you don't have money, but you can't use your CPF money. What's the point of having future money, when you are having present survival issues, which threatens you from collecting your future CPF money.
It's better to let the individual decide on what their investments should be themselves. Better to let the individual choose if they want to be in the CPF scheme (for individuals like Gazelle and lionnoisy) or they want to invest the money themselves.