PAP: Stop Screwing Around with Peoples' CPF - Think Harder..
-
100th...
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
It is quite sad actually.
The CPF must continued to be juggled about as there is no way that this Government can pay every single person a lump sum based on the original CPF scheme.
How can the CPF succeed when there are more Singaporeans born during the period from 1945 to 1969 then any time after this period ?
The CPF scheme is like a pyramid that need a strong wide base at the bottom to support the smaller apex at the top.
This must be so, as those retiring at the top of the pyramid will be taking the most out of the CPF - as their savings would have earned compound annual interests on the long period of contribution.
This large amount taken out from the CPF by the retirees will need a bigger population to continue providing the big contribution that will form the wide bottom of the pyramid - so as to support the large amount of money to be taken out by the retirees.
Unfortunately, with the 'Stop at 2' campaign seeing its effects from 1970s onward till this day, there are less Singaporeans to continue contributing into the CPF to make this program work.
If an average Singaporean employee earn $2000 per month, and pays 20% into his CPF while the Employer pays 16%, there will be a fixed monthly CPF contribution of $720; or $8,640 p.a.
It this amount earns 2% compound interest per year, by the time this Employee reaches his retirement on the 35th year of working life, he will have approximately $440,591.33.
If the retiring population is 100,000 workers, and each has $440,591.33 in his CPF, this Government will need to pay out [b]$44,059,133,000 per year.
If the entire Singaporean work force of approximately 2,000,000 were to retire over the next 20 years - the Government will have to find $881,182,660,000 to pay everyone.
Surely, this amount is more then the known Singapore National Reserves ?
If the Government can have this amount to pay Singaporeans, why mess around with the original CPF scheme ?
It is obvious that either there is no money to pay out, or simply that the Government is reluctant to pay out such a huge sum to elderly Singaporeans - whom the MIW elite has no respect of their abilities to handle such a windfall.
The biggest fear of the MIW is that the elderly Singaporeans will act irrationally by contributing the vast sum of money to support the Alternative Political Parties to battle the MIW.
[/b]
Their policies are all geared towards getting more people (new immigrants, foreign talent, more babies) to continue contributing to this pot of money/reserves. Contributing to it is ok if it is ultimately for the good of Singaporeans. But at the rate things are going, it looks like the majority of Singaporeans will never get to enjoy the fruits of their labour.
Haiz.
So sad.
-
Originally posted by Bloop...:
I hear you.
That's the real question now isn't it? Democracy? The majority VOTED them in?
With the [b]GRC in play, the majority of Singaporeans did not even get to vote at the last elections.
[/b]
GRC indeed. What an invention!
And the PEOPLE never objected to it speaks for itself - THEY either LOVE or at least ACCEPT it. Otherwise, how can we describe this phenomenon ? The status quo?
The way I see it, WITHOUT the people's approval, there is no GRC, ultimately. PERIOD.
Viva la DEMOCRAZi .
Thus we see : Democracy has many flavors. Its ULTIMATELY how the PEOPLE , the STAKEHOLDERS at large, would prefer to have it. The way, I see it. My 2cents only.
Many a times, the PEOPLE has the ultimate RESPONSIBILITY about all policies. DEMOCRACY is a Collective effort. Referendum. Concurrence. Vote of Confidence / no-confidence. Next better player. Majority wins game.
The MAJORITY have brought to you the current status quo. The majority must be RESPONSIBLE, somehow. -
I have been working overseas for years and reading all these crappish policy from my home country a lot of time I can't help thinking maybe I should stay overseas forever. At least here what I earn I get to manage it on my own, I am forty and don't need some crappish leaders sitting in their castles in the air to decide how I should pit in my money to support some old folks who are silly enough to live past 85. Gosh, we Singaporean are such a docile community - hmm, wrong word - DOMESTICATED creatures - SAD!!!
-
66.6% saddens me, I can't believe that such a huge amount of people actually voted for PAP
But I believe with the implementation of annuity, PAP wouldn't get as much votes the next GE. Then again, the GRC sh.it virtually makes it impossible for the government to be overthrown.
Really, if you ask my views...
The day that someone dies, I'll fly the flag... -
couple of days back one 57 year old guy was complaining to me hopping mad....
he went to get his money at the CPF and they have the cheek to tell him: "Who ask you to come 2 years late? You should have come when you turned 55. Now you can only get your money at 62."
wah lao.... he was so hopping mad because they behave like it is their money and not our own hard earned money....
-
sorry typo... they told him, because he went two years "late", "you can only get it at 64..." (62 + 2; two years penalty)
-
To the PAP:
Myanmar, is a fine example of what CAN happen in Singapore, if you "Bright Headed" Elites, don't do something about High Living Costs here...!!! -
They are doing it on purpose... to make the people work harder and harder... see: http://newsintercom.org/index.php?itemid=496Originally posted by HyperFocal:To the PAP:
Myanmar, is a fine example of what CAN happen in Singapore, if you "Bright Headed" Elites, don't do something about High Living Costs here...!!! -
which is something extremely dumb. But government agencies were never known to be flexible in different circumstances.Originally posted by AndrewPKYap:sorry typo... they told him, because he went two years "late", "you can only get it at 64..." (62 + 2; two years penalty)
He should try to raise his case up to the news. I believe for these type of cases, it will be reported. -
1CPF is an expensive fund source
.Gavamen can just issue treasury bills at 1.7% in the past
10 years,lower than 2.5% gave to CPF members.
St times 29..09.2007 page S9,2nd column bottom.
2.Past experiences show that Sporeans are not so smart to invest.
Most ,if not all,have been bite and will be bite by
local and foreign crocodiles in stock markets.
Pl read and find more before u ask PAP to give more
power for CPF members to use their funds.
We may find more homeless years down the road if they have more
say to invest.However, 83 per cent of CPF members who invested their OA savings in the CPFIS from 2002 to 2006 realised less than 2.5 per cent returns - the base rate of the OA.
Half of all members who invested experienced negative returns, losing some part of their capital sum.
Sep 29, 2007 ,Govt investments de-linked from CPF fundsStrait times 29.09.07 SatIN 'CPF finances: Clarity needed to clear the cloud of confusion' (ST, Sept 20), Ms Chua Mui Hoong questioned whether the CPF provides a cheap source of funds for the Government's investments. Subsequent Forum letters also raised the matter of how the return on CPF funds is calculated, and what constitutes a fair return.
The interest members receive for their CPF money should reflect what they could earn by investing in the financial markets, in investments which have comparable risk and duration. All CPF balances are guaranteed by the Government and hence free of risk. Hence the Special, Medisave and Retirement Account (SMRA) interest rates will now be pegged to long-term government-bond yields. Furthermore, the first $60,000 of each person's CPF balances, to be held for the long term, will attract an extra 1 percentage point in interest. This means that they will always earn at least 3.5 per cent interest.
No commercial bank or fund manager offers more generous terms on such investments. Members seeking higher returns can take out their funds to invest through the CPF Investment Scheme (CPFIS). However, 83 per cent of CPF members who invested their OA savings in the CPFIS from 2002 to 2006 realised less than 2.5 per cent returns - the base rate of the OA. Half of all members who invested experienced negative returns, losing some part of their capital sum.
The CPF Board invests members' savings in special securities issued by the Government, which pay the CPF Board the same interest rates that its members receive. The Government pools the proceeds from issuing these securities with the rest of its funds, and invests them professionally for long-term returns. This is completely de-linked from the CPF Board and CPF members. Were this not so, CPF members would be exposed to the investment risks and could not receive guaranteed minimum interest rates.
Up to now, both GIC and Temasek Holdings have earned returns that exceeded CPF interest rates, on average over the years. But this does not mean that the Government is making use of the CPF as a 'cheap source of funds', or earning a 'spread at people's expense'.
First, the Government does not need more funds to invest. Even if it did, it could raise funds more cheaply by issuing treasury bills and government securities, instead of using CPF funds.
Second, Temasek and GIC achieve higher returns on average only by taking on more investment risks. Hence these returns are volatile - they can be low or even negative in some years. Furthermore, we cannot assume that GIC and Temasek will do as well in future. The past two decades have been an exceptional period for global financial markets. Looking ahead, we cannot rule out protracted market downturns, lasting several years. Most CPF members have small balances and will not welcome these risks. Neither will older members waiting to withdraw their retirement funds.
Third, Singaporeans benefit when GIC and Temasek investments do well. Every year, the Government draws part of these investment returns to fund the annual Budget. The revenue is spent on worthwhile investments and social needs, including subsidies for housing, education and health care. And from time to time, the Government distributes accumulated budget surpluses to citizens through CPF top-ups and other schemes.
The Government does not rule out the possibility of introducing private pension plans for those with balances above $60,000 and a higher capacity to take risk. However, it would be unwise for members with low balances to take excessive risks on their basic retirement savings.
The current arrangement thus enables all CPF members to earn fair and risk-free returns on their retirement savings, while benefiting from the good performance of GIC and Temasek through the annual Budget. This is the right way to help Singaporeans save for their old age, and enjoy peace of mind in their golden years.
Jacqueline Poh (Ms)
Director (Special Duties)
Ministry of Finance -
duplicate posting
-
the straits times dedicated about 2 full pages to the cpf argument.
-
If people who slogged till retirement age, hoping to see their hard-earned money in return, ends up in the coffin, what is the point of investing in CPF?
-
Originally posted by pearlie27:
Is it ?? I dunno leh.
30. All this represents a sea-change in the nature of CPF members' rights over their CPF balances. It means that CPF members do not really own their CPF funds, because the Government is able and willing to impose policies to compel members to use their funds in a certain way, even against their strongly-expressed wishes.
What I know is HDB we lease also means we own.
eh.....am I contradicting me self?
alamak! I blurr already lah. so puzzled. -
Hmm.. Very strong anti gahmen sentiments here.
Im not exactly a very great fan of PAP for certain decision they made but i still vote for them.
Because whenever comes GE, when i look at the opposition credential, i was uncomfortable. Only a handful is comparable. The rest? i cant imagine them leading my ward. Even the promising WP Ms Sylvia made some silly mistakes... -
Whether for or against CPF per se, the many postings here are not that objective with many that are heavy on political overtones. But this one by pearlie27 on whether CPF members actually own the money in their CPF accounts is more interesting and challenging. Why?Originally posted by pearlie27:30. All this represents a sea-change in the nature of CPF members' rights over their CPF balances. It means that CPF members do not really own their CPF funds, because the Government is able and willing to impose policies to compel members to use their funds in a certain way, even against their strongly-expressed wishes.
First, CPF is borned out of an Act of Parliament. Indirectly, it means the voters agreed (for those who don't agree with my statement, hold your horses here for the time-being) thru their representatives in parliament. The CPF Act requires 20% contribution from employees and 16% from employers to be made into the Fund. The Fund so created is actually a TRUST. While the trust is in your name with your money put in, you have no say. The 'trustee' i.e. the Board makes all the decisions as to how the Fund can be used.
Besides, technically, the 16% employer contribution is also not yours. Because without the CPF Act, no employer is required by law to add 16% on top of your salary!
I think if you understand this concept right, you will not insist that CPF money is 'your money'. I suggest you read up more on this legal animal called TRUST.
Also, be remindered again the employer's contribution is not god-given nor is it truly your entitlement! So, if you complain so much about the gahmen or parliamentarians who passed this Act requiring you and your employer to contribute, you should be mindful that without it, you don't have the additional 16%. So, if anything else, it is your employer who should be complaining becuase they are required by the Act to pay you 16% for which they not only have no say but also cannot withdraw, at whatever age. -
u cant really control the funds in a trust...
-
Well, no one is infallible. What silly mistakes anyway?Originally posted by AMG CCLASS:Hmm.. Very strong anti gahmen sentiments here.
Im not exactly a very great fan of PAP for certain decision they made but i still vote for them.
Because whenever comes GE, when i look at the opposition credential, i was uncomfortable. Only a handful is comparable. The rest? i cant imagine them leading my ward. Even the promising WP Ms Sylvia made some silly mistakes... -
Since the law has made it such that the employer's contribution goes into the Singaporean's account lawfully under his name, then it should be his money.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:Whether for or against CPF per se, the many postings here are not that objective with many that are heavy on political overtones. But this one by pearlie27 on whether CPF members actually own the money in their CPF accounts is more interesting and challenging. Why?
First, CPF is borned out of an Act of Parliament. Indirectly, it means the voters agreed (for those who don't agree with my statement, hold your horses here for the time-being) thru their representatives in parliament. The CPF Act requires 20% contribution from employees and 16% from employers to be made into the Fund. The Fund so created is actually a TRUST. While the trust is in your name with your money put in, you have no say. The 'trustee' i.e. the Board makes all the decisions as to how the Fund can be used.
Besides, technically, the 16% employer contribution is also not yours. Because without the CPF Act, no employer is required by law to add 16% on top of your salary!
I think if you understand this concept right, you will not insist that CPF money is 'your money'. I suggest you read up more on this legal animal called TRUST.
Also, be remindered again the employer's contribution is not god-given nor is it truly your entitlement! So, if you complain so much about the gahmen or parliamentarians who passed this Act requiring you and your employer to contribute, you should be mindful that without it, you don't have the additional 16%. So, if anything else, it is your employer who should be complaining becuase they are required by the Act to pay you 16% for which they not only have no say but also cannot withdraw, at whatever age.
Whose retirement is that money meant for anyway? For the individual, not the govt's.
When a CPF member dies, the amount is distributed as per nomination or will. None of it goes to the govt. It is the individual's money at the end of the day. -
Your points are valid in-so-far as the ultimate release of fund is concerned. But as long as it is in CPF, that money is in trust - not yours to do as you liked but as approved by the trustees (Board).Originally posted by Rock^Star:Since the law has made it such that the employer's contribution goes into the Singaporean's account lawfully under his name, then it should be his money.
Whose retirement is that money meant for anyway? For the individual, not the govt's.
When a CPF member dies, the amount is distributed as per nomination or will. None of it goes to the govt. It is the individual's money at the end of the day. -
No commercial bank or fund manager offers more generous terms on such investments. Members seeking higher returns can take out their funds to invest through the CPF Investment Scheme (CPFIS). However, 83 per cent of CPF members who invested their OA savings in the CPFIS from 2002 to 2006 realised less than 2.5 per cent returns - the base rate of the OA. Half of all members who invested experienced negative returns, losing some part of their capital sum.
What is the probability that one could lose money in such a strong bull market over the recent years? I think they have made used of the word “realized” i.e. members who sell their investments may have achieved bad returns. Most CPF members who invested in equities have probably enjoyed good “unrealized returns”. Is it a case of using selective data to advance their arguments?
Can the govt raise $70 Billion without spiking the interest rate? It would be easy to borrow $1 or 2 billion without giving higher yields. We are taking about $70 billions of funds. It would eventually reach a point where there are no takers for the low interest bonds and interest rates have to be raised to attract more funds.Singaporeans are not going to sell their stocks or homes to just to earn the current low measly bond rates.
First, the Government does not need more funds to invest. Even if it did, it could raise funds more cheaply by issuing treasury bills and government securities, instead of using CPF funds. -
Over the last few weeks, we have heard over and over again why govt is giving us such a good deal on CPF.
However a few basic questions about the CPF remains. If CPF is such a good deal, why
1. Despite the SingaporeÂ’s high savings rate, many Singaporeans remain, paradoxically unprepared financially for retirement? And if having a savings rate of 40%,one of the highest in the world is insufficient, how many percent savings would be sufficient for retirement? 60%? 70%?
2. Why is the govt willing to believe a group people who would not be disciplined to save without being forced, would make good retirement plans and achieve good returns? Does the govt really believe that the older generation which generally had lesser education would acquire financial knowledge on their own and retire comfortably? -
Your second paragraph deals with the softer side of this trust definition. It is like saying,"Here I have given you these benefits, you should be content with it." The term "entitlement" is surely an SAF term, where soldiers are taught not to take benefits for granted. This however, runs very differently where a country accountable to her stakeholders (well, the citizens) are concerned.Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:I think if you understand this concept right, you will not insist that CPF money is 'your money'. I suggest you read up more on this legal animal called TRUST.
Also, be remindered again the employer's contribution is not god-given nor is it truly your entitlement! So, if you complain so much about the gahmen or parliamentarians who passed this Act requiring you and your employer to contribute, you should be mindful that without it, you don't have the additional 16%. So, if anything else, it is your employer who should be complaining becuase they are required by the Act to pay you 16% for which they not only have no say but also cannot withdraw, at whatever age.
Hence your statement of "entitlement" is true but only to a limited extent.
Regarding the 16% CPF contribution by employers, should we be thankful to the govt when all the money eventually comes from employers and in the civil service's case, money from Singaporeans?
Yes we should be thankful that the govt has planned the scheme this way but should we be blindly grateful for eternity then? No, of course not. Opinions have to be voiced when things are not right.
While not all CPF members are as well informed as financial planning professionals, neither should they be deemed as poor in judgement either. For that reason, your misconstrued view that the people's complaints about CPF reforms stemming solely from ignorance should not hold too. -
At the end of the day, a trust is a "legal arrangement in which an individual (the trustor) gives fiduciary control of property to a person or institution (the trustee) for the benefit of beneficiaries."
Delaying the draw down age when statistics of senior citizens being employed are less than favourable, is certainly not a very wise decision.
And introducing annuities when our life expectancy has still a long way to go before hitting 85 is definitely deplorable.
The key word is "for the benefit of beneficiaries". Since they are handling our money, they have to do it well.
