CPF, circular logic at works
Swee Say said, later retirement and extension of withdrawal age is not to lock up your CPF money. And that is the truth. Another truth is that your money will be locked up for another 3 years. I am confuse as to which is the greater truth. And this Michael Chwee said, 'If you want workers to work longer, we must have extra savings...' What is he talking? If a worker is employed to his last day of life, eg 85, he is expected to have a decent income till that day. Why should he need more savings? Only those that are not working and has no income need to have more savings. Once the retirement end is extened from 62 to 65, the workers are working 3 extra years, earning 3 more years of income. So his needed savings should go down by 3 more years. Is this reasoning so difficult to understand? And I am referring to people who are not working and have no income. Many may not be working but still have income. I do not buy the argument that the whole concept of filial piety or to take care of your parents, or just to give them a little pocket money are a total washout. If that is the case, our education has failed miserably and we should scrap teaching such concepts in schools immediately. It is a total waste of time and effort. A big farce. A big failure.