8/22/2007

Annuity - Nagging questions

How many people will live more than 85 years? How many of them will be destitutes and need charity? Can the govt afford to pay $300 pm to these octogenarians? Why go to all the trouble to implement a scheme that is unpopular and will only benefit a very small number of people? Please don't give the crap that all these old people will be dependent on welfare. The bulk of the lost generations, the uneducated, penniless, homeless and unemployable will be over in 10 or 20 years. The generations after them are not so desperate. Most would have something to fall back on. Those who still have to depend on charity will be those that have nothing in their CPF for the govt of hold back and neither would they have any HDB flats. These will be the new dropouts of society, the drug addicts, the loafers, etc, a small minority. And people are working longer from now on. Why are we doing all these? The problem so serious?

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

The over 80s can do with help from the corporations and totalisator board, IR and even agencies like Temasek who are already donating to other foreign assistance programmes, are in the position to assist. It will help their goodwill and PR positionings.

Matilah_Singapura said...

These nonsensical "changes" to CPF is nothing but a ploy to mislead the populace. In the short run, it saves the govt face because it will (temporarily) avert a CASH CRISIS (too many payouts, shrinking population) in this govt-legalised pyramid scheme, funded by TAX (aka "CPF contributions")

The statistical FACT is that more people are going to live longer, and by the same reasoning, more people will have to stay EMPLOYED longer—in their 70's and beyond—simply because they have not enough cash flow to meet their needs for survival.

Add to that the fact that most people are inadequately covered for healthcare, and the older you get the more healthcare you will need.

CPF might look as if it is temporarily "OK", but the fact is it will fail, and even before it does, people will suffer.

It is a LOSE-LOSE situation, as most govt programs are.

redbean said...

so far it seems that the plan is based on the assumption that all the oldies are desperate and need them. how many really need the annuities?

Khiat Han Hwee Adrian said...

Its a good idea for the annuity plan in Singapore where aging population will be a problem.

However, I hope our government will give some money for a retiree on age 55 into this annuity account.

eg, Every year as a Singaprean entitles to $100. Hence a 55 yo Singaporean will be given $5,500 into this annuity account. If the person contribute with another $10,000, it will comes up to $15,500. With yearly interest of 5%, it will grow to $67,000 in 30 yrs. With risk pooling, the person should get at least $700/mth from age 85. (Today's value of $350 basis 2.5% inflation)

In Short - The Goverment should contribute a bit into this annuity account and not totally push all responsibility to the citizen.

Anonymous said...

People should ask themselves why they need a government? Is it a last line of defence?
If after paying so much taxes (GST, Income tax, water tax, car tax, property tax, housing tax, etc)to the government for so many donkey years and realised that they are not backing you up, many would really get upset.
To be fair, Government should support all Citizens above 85years without question. they have earn their right to be so.

Anonymous said...

To be fair, Government should support all Citizens above 85years without question. they have earn their right to be so.


somebody will tremble at that statement. many things can be changed except this. everybody toes the line, and the OFFICIAL line is clearly NO .. as in over his dead body!

Anonymous said...

Direct handouts from the govt can be misread as encouraging clutch mentality, whereas instituition and corporate social programmes have a more subtle win-win effect.

redbean said...

we have several interesting views on this issue. adrian's suggestion is probably the simplest and best thing to do. If they are going to throw money at the people, why not put some aside for annuity?

anonymous suggestion that the govt should provide for all those above 85 may be asking too much. but i don't think it is asking too much for the govt to set aside some money for annuity for this group of oldies who are destitute and have not dependents. the number can be quite small.

i think one plate of char kway teow will be more than enough to provide for them.

Anonymous said...

To be fair the govt did contribute quite generously to the workfare, hdb grants and student fundings and it makes sense for better ROI investing in productive youths but we cud have been more compassionate for our liabilities in the poor, aged and sick as well becos they are part of the family.

Anonymous said...

the handouts that we are given, is an envy to our neighbours ...

redbean said...

i agree with both of you. what we are discussing now is all about fine tuning. we are a very rich nation and now is how to share the char kway teow.

one plate for you, ten plates for me, half a plate for the oldies?