Based on WHAT, that They Believe We Will Live BEYOND 85??
-
... I wonder, how the hell can anyone PREDICT for sure that when you are able to reach 62, you CAN live BEYOND 85???
... the only entity I can think of who is likely to be accurate in this Longevity Prediction, is God.....
... is the FAP, God???
==============================
Annuities: Return of capital under study
Li Xueying
Sat, Dec 08, 2007
AsiaOne
SINGAPOREANS who fear they will lose the original sum they put into the impending compulsory annuities scheme could have a way out.
The committee studying the scheme is considering letting people have the remainder of their capital payment returned to their families if they died before it ran out. This will effectively remove one of the biggest sticking points over the compulsory annuity.
The idea is one of four suggestions emerging from the committee tasked by the Government to design a basic compulsory annuity plan.
Another idea is to rename the scheme from Longevity Insurance to something more positive sounding such as Long-Life Income.
Yet another suggestion is to get independent actuaries - financial experts who calculate risks and insurance rates - to verify the Government's data on longer lifespans.
The fourth idea is to let people choose when they want to start receiving their payouts.
Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen and the committee's chairman, Professor Lim Pin, revealed these ideas in separate interviews with The Straits Times.
On the idea of getting back capital, Dr Ng said: 'People don't like the idea of others getting their money...So we are going to consider that they get whatever unused money back.
'Of course, the interest can never come back because this is locked - the interest is pooled - but the sum that you put in at a particular age, if you don't use it, it goes back to you.'
It will come with a trade-off though, noted Prof Lim. 'You will have to pay higher premiums. It will be more expensive.'
An annuity is an insurance product in which a person invests a lump sum in return for a monthly payout for life.
The committee was formed after Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong announced at this year's National Day Rally that Singaporeans must buy an annuity so that they have an income for life.
Under the initial proposal, those below 50 will use part of their Central Provident Fund money to buy the annuity and start getting payouts at age 85.
But the committee will weigh all options and present its final recommendations by March.
On changing the name of the scheme, Dr Ng said the committee told him that people were uncomfortable with the thought of insuring against a good outcome, which is a long life. Usually, people take out insurance against illnesses, accidents, or death.
The Government has said that the annuities scheme is necessary, as more than half of those who make it to age 62 will live beyond 85 and they need to have money then.
But the committee found that some still need to be convinced of this data and hence, the independent actuaries.
Singaporeans are 'quite trusting and the Government has never lied', said Prof Lim. But as this is an issue involving their money, 'the trust, maybe, needs to be enhanced', he added.
Agreeing, Dr Ng said: 'There's no harm in appointing an independent actuary to have a second look.'
On when people can opt to receive their payouts, he noted that they wanted flexibility.
'So we're trying to consider, okay, you choose, any age from 65, 70, 75, 80, 85, 90.'
Singaporeans like trade officer Janagi Somu, 45, liked the idea of getting back his annuity capital.
He said: 'It's only right that the money goes back to our next-of-kin, since it's our hard-earned money.' -
Medical Advancement.
Can prolong your life. -
Well, what can I say?
Majority , if not all, sg'lians trust them with the mandate , nonstop since independence.
Why is this question even asked?
Without the mandate, they would not have the power to run.
As simple as that.
Please recognise the fact that sg'lians are unique. They always choose them. never failed to do so. Never.
So, its the people who determined the past, the current and the future.
No single party can determine this no matter what it is. -
the current generation of ministers are more heartless as compared to the early ministers. David Marshall will definitely flip in his grave when he hear such bad ministerial management. If only we have the old guards back.. too bad most are dead and long forgotten.
PAP, when it started out to govern singapore, it has good intention to prosper the country. Nowaday, the ministers are out to hookwink and squeeze the singaporeans to their advantages. -
the govt has secretly injected longevity essence into NEWATER
-
that's embalming fluid not 'longevity essence'Originally posted by FireIce:the govt has secretly injected longevity essence into NEWATER -
Base on LKY. Using him as a benchmark. He living beyond 85 already so it is assumed that everyone else should live past 85...
(If he live till 100++, the payout age for the compulsory annuities scheme will also be raised to match his age)
-
it's like calling a toilet cleaner "cleanliness supervisor"Originally posted by Demonight:that's embalming fluid not 'longevity essence'
must beautify terms one mah
tts wat our govt like to do -
ROFLOL!Originally posted by Demonight:that's embalming fluid not 'longevity essence' -
Originally posted by HyperFocal:Singaporeans are 'quite trusting and the Government has never lied', said Prof Lim. But as this is an issue involving their money, 'the trust, maybe, needs to be enhanced', he added. Is Prof Lim on crack? But of course I forgot the fact that he is probably an elite...
-
I'll have whatever he's smoking. Probably helps him numb the neuronsOriginally posted by korusu: Is Prof Lim on crack? But of course I forgot the fact that he is probably an elite... -
So that we can live like zombies and not feel any pain parting with our money?Originally posted by Demonight:that's embalming fluid not 'longevity essence' -
at age of 62, all singapore citizens must report to SGH for injection of adam monroe's blood
-
it is essentially based on statistical research and data complilation. Sure, no statisitcs is error free, and i don't think the government will release the data to anyone... so we cant tell what kind of figures did they use to draw up their extrapolation or regression models.. but i think there is an element of truth in saying the current generation can expect to live longer.
Heck, young people in the 70s never expect to live beyond 65, and now they're faced with the possibility of living till 85 and not having money!
Yes, we know the government are money suckers, but i think the 'random' age of 85 that has stirred so much debate is still based on some statisical compilation -
Then when the government wants you to die they'll give you the virusOriginally posted by FireIce:at age of 62, all singapore citizens must report to SGH for injection of adam monroe's blood -
They probably looked at the top 5 percentile on a distribution chart and went, "Hey that looks good. Lets just go with 85".Originally posted by sir sickolot II:it is essentially based on statistical research and data complilation. Sure, no statisitcs is error free, and i don't think the government will release the data to anyone... so we cant tell what kind of figures did they use to draw up their extrapolation or regression models.. but i think there is an element of truth in saying the current generation can expect to live longer.
Heck, young people in the 70s never expect to live beyond 65, and now they're faced with the possibility of living till 85 and not having money!
Yes, we know the government are money suckers, but i think the 'random' age of 85 that has stirred so much debate is still based on some statisical compilation -
I think despite the suggestion that upon death, the money may be able to go to the kins, I urge the People read between the fine lines and examine what conditions apply , if any, for the return.Originally posted by HyperFocal:... I wonder, how the hell can anyone PREDICT for sure that when you are able to reach 62, you CAN live BEYOND 85???
... the only entity I can think of who is likely to be accurate in this Longevity Prediction, is God.....
... is the FAP, God???
==============================
[b]Annuities: Return of capital under study
......
He said: 'It's only right that the money goes back to our next-of-kin, since it's our hard-earned money.'
For me, I would consider that under such a scheme,
upon death, the kins nominated should receive the entire residue instantly or in a very very short time. It should not be returning by INSTALLMENT over many years. I think the scheme is not a bank. Its not meant to profit. This is the PEOPLE's money afterall.
Money should be returned 100% at 1 go asap upon death to the kins.
Not that it is to be, I would think the money should also not go into some kind of ACCOUNT, if you know what I mean? 'cos technically the money can go to the kins. BUT WHAT IF THAT GOES TO THE KIN'S CPF OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT KIND OF ACCOUNT , AGAIN????
what you PEOPLE say?
LETS SEE HOW THIS UNRAVELS.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No one OWES no one a living. No one's money should belong to anyone other than the owners themselves. As simple as that. -
I am glad to see that the PEOPLE's feedback has taken some effect.
That the PEOPLE are beginning to take ownership of their responsibility for how a country is run.
That the PEOPLE are beginning to ADVISE the gubberment about how they should set policies.
That the PEOPLE are the ones whose voice should be regarded with the utmost importance when someone person starts to write a policy.
It should not be a person's writing.
It should encompass the PEOPLE, all of them's views.
Its the PEOPLE who makes things happen.
Without the PEOPLE there is no country and no power can be given to the ruling people. -
By setting the benchmark at 85 and making us work long after 62, many will not make it. Most of them will die from karoshi before reaching 85.
Bargain Hen is thinking of ways to tax those for not being able to live up to 85 and beyond.
DonÂ’t bargain with him. -
based on the OBITUARIES,Originally posted by googoomuck:By setting the benchmark at 85 and making us work long after 62, many will not make it. Most of them will die from karoshi before reaching 85.
Bargain Hen is thinking of ways to tax those for not being able to live up to 85 and beyond.
DonÂ’t bargain with him.
I dont see majority are living pass 85.
If any, they die at 86 or there abouts.
this means the more, money should be withdrawn 10 years before they pass away. -
looking at the lifestyle of the old folks here, i would rather pack the bag and go to other country at the age of 45 to start enjoying what a true ideal life is for old folks than rather stay here and work beyond 85.
-
IMO, Maybe they want an annuity scheme to prevent the money from going out of Singapore.Originally posted by kangyk:looking at the lifestyle of the old folks here, i would rather pack the bag and go to other country at the age of 45 to start enjoying what a true ideal life is for old folks than rather stay here and work beyond 85.
-
This must be the biggest bollocks in the whole chunk - isn't that, on its own, sufficient to render the credibility of the article suspect?Originally posted by HyperFocal:Singaporeans are 'quite trusting and the Government has never lied', said Prof Lim.
After all, if that were remotely believable, I might as well believe I'm the most indispensable creature to have roamed the planet since sliced bread... -
Very much my sentiment as well; - he's very much saying "...Chickens don't sh|t.."..Originally posted by walesa:This must be the biggest bollocks in the whole chunk - isn't that, on its own, sufficient to render the credibility of the article suspect?
After all, if that were remotely believable, I might as well believe I'm the most indispensable creature to have roamed the planet since sliced bread... -
Facts on the ground more eloquent than statistics: Ngiam
MORE than four decades ago, former top civil servant Ngiam Tong Dow — then a young public officer in the Finance Ministry — was tagging along with former Deputy Prime Minister Dr Goh Keng Swee at a high-level United Nations meeting in Thailand.
After dinner one day during the discussion at the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East, the minister insisted that a bemused Mr Ngiam follow him on an evening walk through the streets of Bangkok.
"After sweating up and down the hot and dusty pavements of the street in front of our hotel, I plucked up enough courage to ask Dr Goh what was the purpose of the exercise," said Mr Ngiam last Saturday at the National University of Singapore's Economics Alumni inaugural annual dinner. The event was attended by about 100 alumni from various years.
As it turned out, Dr Goh — widely regarded as Singapore's economic wizard — wanted to see "whether the shops were well stocked" in order to satisfy himself with the economic statistics put forth by the Bank of Thailand.
Mr Ngiam, now 70, also recalled how Dr Albert Winsemius, Singapore's first economics adviser, got his grandson to plot the changes in the number of job advertisements in the newspaper.
The chart his grandson produced "told him far more about the state of the Singapore economy than all the economic statistics I dutifully sent him each month", said Mr Ngiam.
Mr Ngiam was underlining the pitfalls of over-reliance on economic statistics without reality checks, especially in today's age of super-computers.
Another potential trap is how Singapore's "robust brand" of economics could turn out to be myopic, said Mr Ngiam.
Questioning the Monetary Authority of Singapore's use of the exchange rate as the key monetary policy instrument — while eschewing the interest rate as a tool — Mr Ngiam said that long-term growth could only be sustained by increases in productivity.
While wages here have skyrocketed in the last few months, economists have expressed concern over the sluggish growth in productivity.
Describing the Republic's productivity performance as "mediocre", Mr Ngiam pointed out how Singapore's Gross Domestic Product has expanded "largely on infusions of foreign labour".
Said Mr Ngiam: "MAS' catchphrase in its half-yearly review is that it will allow a modest appreciation of the Singapore dollar over time. Such a policy stance is realistic only if there is steady increase in our productivity growth."
And such shortsightedness has come back to haunt Singapore in some instances, Mr Ngiam added.
For example, the ongoing retrofitting of lifts to stop on every floor in HDB blocks is costing the Government "much more" than the intended "marginal" savings when it decided in the early years that the lifts should stop on alternate floors.
And even the top brains can sometimes be wrong — as evidenced by the "great MRT debate" of the mid-1970s, said Mr Ngiam.
Back then, a "powerful" team of Harvard economists assembled by the Finance Ministry had argued for an all-bus transport network instead of a bus-rail mass rapid transit system.
Dr Goh also argued that an all-bus system would be less risky than the $5 billion MRT system as the bus fleets "can expand incrementally bus by bus".
"It was a disruptive piece of reasoning," said Mr Ngiam, who had argued for a rail-based network on the basis that it would provide access to the whole island and push up property prices.
"The increase in the collection of property taxes would probably pay for the total cost of $5 billion to build the initial system," said Mr Ngiam, who added that the Government's final decision to build the MRT has been vindicated.
Reiterating that population issues are the most pressing concerns, cutting across the social, economic and political spheres, Mr Ngiam said he feared that "the tipping point of procreation has been reached" and falling birth rates "cannot be easily reversed".
While he confessed that he was "not clued up enough" to have a complete understanding of the current population policy, Mr Ngiam repeated his concern — which he first made in a People's Action Party newsletter last month — that Singapore should not be obsessed with bumping up the population for economic purposes, given the advances in technology and education standards.
Said Mr Ngiam: "The civil service is more adept at achieving quantitative than qualitative targets. Topping up our population en masse with immigrants may well create a population base larger than what our economy can sustain."