CPF not the only way in retirement plans

For those who have been following the public discussion on the CPF schemes and how it should be tweaked into a better system must be very assured of how good the improved version 1.01 would be, or must be. The experts have them all worked out. The new system would be carefully structured and calibrated to apportion the CPF savings for retirement, for medical, for emergencies, for sudden short of funds, and for the savers to retire comfortably with no worries.

I would not hazard to guess how much one would need to put into the CPF to have peace of mind and no financial worries in the golden years. And it would likely have to prepare the people to save enough to live till 100 years.

All this sounds so good. The main assumption is that the people can afford to save all the money they need to save. Question, what about those who cannot afford to save? What about those who don’t even have enough to meet their daily needs?

There is also this tussle between saving enough to retire and live comfortably or a scheme that treat the CPF as one of many other provisions for old age, and that a compulsory scheme should only dictate one to provide for the minimum or basic needs. Even the Medishield Life which I thought was on the right track in providing for the basic coverage, there are people, rich people, who wanted the Medishield Life to provide for B1. If this is an upgrade for those who are able to pay for more, it is fair. If this is used by the rich for their rich nees, and used as the premise for computing the premiums for all, then the not so rich would end up sharing the cost of the rich.

I still think that such compulsory schemes should be designed to cater for the lowest denominator, the basics while the extras should be an options for those who demands for them and able to pay for them.  Do not make the poor pay for the fancies of the rich in a public compulsory scheme. And the CPF must not be thinking of becoming the only means of savings and thus must be loaded up for a comfy retirement for the rich. People have many other ways to provide for their retirement and CPF is not the only way. Do not impose a savings schemes on the people that cannot afford to have one. And do not make the CPF the mother of all savings schemes to provide for everything under the sky. Not many can afford such a comprehensive and rich scheme, or need such a scheme. Many would rely on family support for their golden years and even regard the CPF as superfluous.

There are many roads leading to Rome.

Kopi Level - Green


Anonymous said...

The 1st elephant in the room.
The CPF system is not the problem.
The PAP that created this CPF is the problem.

Anonymous said...

The 2nd elephant in the room.
If we don't have enough money in the first place;
- how will any new and improved CPF help?

Anonymous said...

"Question, what about those who cannot afford to save? What about those who don’t even have enough to meet their daily needs?"

From PAP viewpoint should not be a problem, if they are already part of the 40% who did not vote PAP last election.

In fact some of them may even vote for PAP for fear that their life, although bad now, will even be worse if the opposition, which is not even ready, is voted in as govt.

Anonymous said...

In any country, there will always be some who cannot afford to save, and who don’t even have enough to meet their daily needs.

Let's face it. Such problems cannot be completely solved by changing the govt lah. Because under any govt, there will always be such people.

Which country in the world do not have such people, u tell me lah?

Anonymous said...

Tiok, CPF not the only way in retirement plans. But PAP tell Sinkies that this is the PAP way.

U want other ways? Then find your own way lah. Or better still, vote in an alternative that have other better ways lah, and for all Sinkies.

Cannot, is it? Then accept the PAP way lor.

Anonymous said...

all fiat currency become zero in value over time.
singapore dollar also fiat currency.it is safer to own some gold or silver as retirement fund cos the collaspe of usd as world reserve currency is coming.the possible of a new world reserve currency based on some form of gold standard is a likely possible .just treat your cpf fund as some sort of bail in fund for you know who....

Anonymous said...

The 3rd elephant in the room.
Singaporeans have one of the highest savings rate in the world ... in part because of the CPF compulsory savings system.
And yet many Singaporeans do not have enough money for medical, hospitalization and retirement.
- Because our savings have all gone towards paying for our over-priced HDB flats.

Anonymous said...

The 4th elephant in the room.
The PAP government owns and/or controls 90% of the land supply in Singapore.
There is no "Singapore property market".
There is only a PAP government property market.

Anonymous said...

The 5th elephant in the room.
With one of the highest savings rates in the world, why are Singaporeans always short of money?

This then is the 5th elephant in the room
The PAP government surplus every year.
A government surplus means that the PAP govt has over-collected tax money from Singaporeans.

Just like a Town Council surplus means the PAP town council has over-collected money.
We have been made to overpay the costs of running the PAP GRC.
i.e. we have been overcharged.
That is how you get a surplus.

And what happens to the Town Council surplus?
The money that we have overpaid?
Is it returned to us?
It goes into the PAP black box called the "reserve".
The minute any money is classified as reserve ... that means that it will take 56 man years to find out how it is being used.
Very difficult for Singaporeans to ever enjoy the fruits of their over-taxed money again.

Is the PAP government subsidizing the Singaporeans?
Or are Singaporeans subsidizing the PAP government?
Who really has a subsidy mentality?

Anonymous said...

The 6th elephant in the room.
- LKY is the founding father of PAP.
- LKY has been quoted as saying "What's wrong with collecting more money?"

So if you vote for PAP.
And you always find yourself short of money.
Do you know why?


agongkia said...

CPF is the answer for those who are unable to save.
If they did not start taxing Sinkies 20% in those days,I wonder how many can buy a pigeon hole that they can now call 'home'.
Those who have excess in CPF now should treat it as a tax to the Nation.Stop dreaming of CPF whether one is 55 or not.
Continue to work and the income and workfare etc is enough for one to drink kopi O ,ang chee kow buy Toto etc and even go Batam.Dun be naive and ever think of retirement unless one is financially independent.I know I have to work till age 99.No regret to be a Sinkie.

Anonymous said...

RB, in sinkie land except for the very rich who owns the 50 million freehold bungalow, sinkies actually do not have any assets at all. Housing is 99 years prepaid rental, car is 10 years rental. Sinkies actually only rent everything, and everything else belong to the government. If you want to own assets, either u migrate or u vote to change government.

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Agongkia, the CPF was a good scheme, a very good scheme in its original form. Now you are saving for other people to use your money and you can only be happy looking at the statement. Many will die without the privilege of enjoying their life savings.

Is that a good thing?

And many uncles and aunties did not have any CPF but are living happily with family support. Not everyone needs CPF. CPF is not the only answer to retirement plan.

Like some experts have pointed out, it should be a fall back position, to provide some life support for many. For the rich, they want to have a CPF savings that would allow them to continue the same quality of life on retirement.

Their expectation should not be used as a reference point to punish the rest that could not afford to save much.


One fact will always remain.

At the end of the day, the Geylang prostitutes will be selling their bodies and cunts cum wart may?

As sure as the sun will rise from the East tmr RB, the SINKIELAND PIMPS AND PROSTITUTES will sell their SOULS and their CUNTRY to pocket that one more gold nugget, one more mouthful of shark fins to gargle, one more 50,000 sq ft bungalow to live like a decadent and immoral king ......... etc etc.

Anonymous said...

The 7th elephant in the room.
Only Lee Kuan Yew and PAP has the monopoly on wisdom about what is good for Singaporeans and Singapore.

There are so many possible solutions to the challenges that face Singapore today.
We are a small country.
We need Singaporeans to be courageous and creative.
We don't want our citizens to be PAP sheeple.

Just because PAP's paper generals can only run a command and control type of economy ... does not mean that all Singaporeans have to become soldiers to suit them.

Gratitude does not mean servitude.
Don't be daft.
An alien will take over your job and country very soon.

Anonymous said...

Rb comment, "And many uncles and aunties did not have any CPF but are living happily with family support. Not everyone needs CPF. CPF is not the only answer to retirement plan."

I sort of like your comment tt compulsory schemes like these shld cater to the lowest common denominator I.e. In this case take care of the minimum amt of regular income tt is needed to hv subsistence living in our old age. Our other savings shld provide for income above tt eg. Cash at bank, insurance plan, money from children.

But to rely solely on children in the future is going to be difficult in future for 2 reasons. The first is tt many hv 1 to 2 children compared to the past where family size r bigger. The second reason is tt things r so expensive tt the children can barely get by, so it will be difficult to add further burden to them.

The future will get very difficult for retirees and the planning will hv to start now. As responsible citizens, we hv to acknowledge tt the problem exists and if we don't like the current solution, then we need to articulate what is it we want?

To keep writing articles to ask for CPF back is popular but somewhat irresponsible because a good democracy requires well informed citizens tt r prepared to make the necessary trade offs in the long term interest of the country.


/// To keep writing articles to ask for CPF back is popular but somewhat irresponsible because a good democracy requires well informed citizens tt r prepared to make the necessary trade offs in the long term interest of the country. ///

It is socially IRRESPONSIBLE to allow 2 casinos at the doorsteps of a city state in the name of national interest.

It is morally irresponsible to self pay millions but go for lazy and irresponsible policy options to drive economic growth in the name of national interest.

It is ethically irresponsible to heap the sacrifices on ordinary folks by cutting income taxes and corporate taxes for the rich but implement GST which is a regressive tax as well as manipulate COE quotas relatively with open legs measures to incessantly drive up demand and thus ridiculous COE prices ( 10 year indirect tax ) in the name of national interest.

In the name of national interest, many things are pushed to pull the carpet under ordinary folks feet.

As someone pointed out, everything is being exploited to excessive levels for self enrichment and unsustainable levels.

In the name of national interest, grandmothers also can be sold in Geylang by some morally bankrupt PIMPS and PROSTITUTION pariah-ticians.

Anonymous said...

6.33 am I agreed with u totally. I think 12.55 am probably have drink excessively when he posted. Knn what national interest? O$p$ very simple concept that he does not understand. You can not legislate away people money and plan on how to use it without consent.mif the proposed scheme is that good, it should attract people voluntarily and not by compulsion.

Example want people to leave money with cpf, offer better interest rate. No need to legislate

放下屠刀,回头是岸! said...

If the current people cannot offer any reasonable solutions after 55 years since 1959 and some more remunerated at the world's highest $$$$€£¥$$$$$€£$$$$$ $alarie$ of millions and millions to address sinkies retirement issues, in the name of ordinary folks interest, they should not die die hang on to powder at ALL COSTS!

Capable opposition should not be hounded out of contention by bankruptcy and all kinds of means.

Sportsmen/ women are great by their graciousness in accepting defeats through fair competition.

Clinging to powder at all COSTS and MEANS despite the facts staring at their faces would 100% make some people obvious of being the world's SORE LOSERS and thus UNWORTHY opponents and not even on par with young sportsmen/ women who are not even 1/3 their age most of the time......

As the Chinese said, "using the backsides as their faces" is shameless and delusional.


Just like a saying in the underworld, 浪子回头金不换!

Even a notorious thug can turn over a new leaf.

Human should not be too greedy and learn when to stop.

Otherwise "Heaven wraths know no bound".

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Hi Anon 12:55. The return of the people's money at 55 is a basic right of the people. No govt or banks can justify withholding money from the rightful owners held in trust. If you miss this point and think it is ok, then you are sinking into a shit hole of no return.

If you read my other posts you will find that returning money at 55 is only one part of the whole story. Even if it is the whole story, it is not irresponsible to return to the people what is theirs. It is highly irresponsible and outrageous to think of taking money from the owners and not returning to them.

Let the people plan their lives with their money. Not you, not any govt, can hijack this right of the people, to take their money and plan their lives without their consent. This is rude, arrogant, abusive and gangsterism.

Depending on family support for old age is an Asian tradition, where the family is the basic social unit. There is nothing wrong with that. But many people will not be so simple minded to rely just on family support if they can help it, similar not to depend on the CPF savings as the only way. Living is more complex than that.

It is very irresponsible to tell the people to give up their rights to their own money, their right to decide what they want to do with their own money. And it is hideous to tell the people there nothing wrong for the govt to unilateraly decide what it wants to do with their money.

Unbelieveable that you think it is irresponsible for the people to demand their money back. The people did not save a life time to hand their money to the govt to do as it pleases.

Please be responsible with your comments and don't try to make the people to think like fools.

Anonymous said...

"To keep writing articles to ask for CPF back is popular but somewhat irresponsible because a good democracy requires well informed citizens tt r prepared to make the necessary trade offs in the long term interest of the country."
July 29, 2014 12:55 am

Sounds so sweet when you say it like that.
Now I ask you.
What is this "country" that you are talking about?

The sum total of Singapore is the people ... Singaporeans.
When Singaporeans do well, then Singapore will also do well.

This is opposite to "reading the road map upside down" PM Lee who says "I want Singapore to do well so Singaporeans can do well"
- who is this Singapore that has to do well first before Singaporeans can do well?
- Is it the aliens PM Lee is importing into Singapore?
- Is it the Millionaire talents in PAP?

Anonymous said...

RB, you have IBs coming here to tell Sinkies to be dumb and daft and let the govt take control of their life savings.

And he believes the Sinkies are really stupid to listen to him.


Anonymous said...

I am Anon@12.55.

RB, what you are speaking about is an ideological argument. There is also a practical aspect to it.

In case I am mistaken for an IB, I am hardly one because I do not believe that so much should be spent on defence and so little on education and healthcare. A few hours of F16 flying will cost enough fuel to put a Singaporean kid through university.

Having said that, I once saw a Singaporean who suddenly had a big pile of money dumped on him when he reached 55 many years back. Spent loads in a few years and is now struggling.

It got me interested in the subject and spoke to many abt the topic. Asked myself why so many of the uncles & aunties are working in coffee shops, hawker centres and toilets when they can barely move.

Then I ask what the future will be like, given 4 indisputable facts

a. we have much fewer children than our parents, to depend on

b. we have a rapidly aging population so the burden on society will be huge

c. cost of living is shooting through the roof, which means our children will have a hard time supporting themselves

d. we are living longer so we will need more money in our retirement

If we are truly unbiased and objective about it, we know that the problem can only get bigger in future.

So imagine that you are "confucianistic" ruler of the country, what would you do? Let your people suffer when they grow old or do something abt it now.

Anonymous said...

/// Having said that, I once saw a Singaporean who suddenly had a big pile of money dumped on him when he reached 55 many years back. Spent loads in a few years and is now struggling. ///
July 29, 2014 4:55 pm

- So now you are the world expert on old people savings & finances is it?

Anonymous said...

Having said that, I once saw a Singaporean who suddenly had a huge majority in Singapore's parliament when he was in his thirties.
Spent loads of his time mentoring and pontificating about the secret of his success.
He is now struggling and his son seems to have lost his way.

You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

Anonymous said...

Did Anon 12:55 find out why everything in Sin is super expensive?
The Sin Leaders are also paid unbelievable and unbeatable remunerations to run a tiny rock, did Anon 12:55 knows why?

Why did Anon 12:55 expects the People to overcome the problems created by the Leaders? It is only reasonable and normal for citizenry to expect Leaders to solve problems of the Citizenry. The Opposite happens in Sin, the Leaders cause the Problems to the People. Does Anon 12:55 think that he/she is well taken care of and also coping well cos he/she is well prepared. Are all your friends, neighbours and relatives doing as well? You do know many elderly uncles and aunties struggling for survivals; You think they asked and deserve their fates?

Chua Chin Leng aka redbean said...

Hi Anon 12:55. The first principle, no one, not the govt, can take the people's money away from them on the assumption that the person is irresponsible, this is an asshole's assumption. A screw up logic.

This is a very dangerous ground to concede except for the mentally unsound or those who voluntarily asked the govt to do so.

It is rude, patronising, oppressive and brazen for anyone in the govt to make a sweeping judgement on a few million people, a blanket condemnation of many responsible adults and of sound mind and ability. How can this be acceptable?

If there is one case or a few thousand cases, it still cannot be a justification to condemn the rest of the millions of people. Only daft Sinkies can be conned to accept this reasoning.

The govt can offer all kinds of incentive schemes to encourage the people to keep their money with the CPF longer.

For the small group of irresponsible and reckless people, or simple minded people that could be cheated, it is the govt's job to find ways to look after them. No craps like why should the govt have to look after them. There is the safety net called Public Assistance to provide subsistence level of aid for the desperadoes. Why doesn't the govt abolish the PA scheme?

Why should everyone be punished for a few guilty ones? What kind of justice system is that? What kind of people will think this is a good excuse to take away the people's money?

And the ugly truth, do you sincerely believe the Govt's keeping your money is for your own good?

Anonymous said...

Let me first agree with you that the govt shld have offered incentives (like higher interest) to make it more palatable for citizens to put money in the cpf longer.

Having said that, consider the consequence if what I said turns out right i.e. that many singaporeans may not have the necessary financial knowledge and discipline to stretch their money all the way to the grave.

Then what happens will be this - they will use up their retirement money too fast and will have to end up depending too much on their children and society on their medical fees and living allowance.

And to make things a little better, they will have to make some money cleaning tables and toilets and to scavenge for rubbish to sell. These sights are rare in the 80s and 90s but it has become a relatively common sight.

But let's say that you are right and almost all the people can manage their money well. Then what happens will be some unhappy Singaporeans who nevertheless will continue to receive a regular income after 65 so that they have money to visit Batam/Dongguang on a reqular basis.

Between the 2 outcomes, what wld a "confucianistic" ruler that is concern with the welfare of the people select?

And between the 2, which is a higher form of justice? The justice by giving the cpf back at 55? Or the justice that help them avoid unnecessary suffering in their old age?

At the heart of the difference in opinion lies to assumptions:

a. That most citizens know how to invest to stretch their retirement. This can be resolve easily via an independent survey

b. That the govt has enough money to meet the CPF liabilities which you doubt. This also can be easily solved by looking through the audited accounts of MAS & Temasek. Both combined have more than $500 billion of reserves versus the CPF outstanding amt of $250 billion.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:56 seemed bent on accusing elderly Singaporeans of visiting Batam/Dongguan. Maybe we can add Thailand, Hainan Island and Vietnam as well.
How about the Two Local Casinos, Island wide whore houses and hundreds or more betting outlets?

For each visitor to Batam, there likely tens of folks visiting the Casinos and tens of thousands betting away at all the betting outlets throughout the Island.

The Vietnamese, PRC, Thai, Malaysian and some local beer promoters could have attracted many times more locals to spend and while around than going overseas.

Why is Said Anon avoiding the Home Vices that are legalized and promoted?