8/01/2006

myth 47

'Singaporeans did not have enough savings for retirements' I can't believe that this is true. And it is true given the concern expressed by MPs. Look at this. [b]Helping Singaporeans save for retirement a concern for MPsBy May Wong, Channel NewsAsia Posted: 31 July 2006 1958 hrs SINGAPORE : Singaporeans' lack of savings for retirement is a key concern of some MPs; this is especially worrying as Singapore is facing an ageing population. By 2030, one in five Singaporeans will be aged 65 years and above, and being financially independent may be a problem if Singaporeans do not start saving for their old age now. [/b] How could Singaporeans be short of retirement fund when we were the second highest savers in Asia after Japan? How could that be when the Govt has stashed up $200 billion in reserves? How can that be when the Medisave Account requirement is $30k and will go on higher? How can this be when the minimum sum is $80k and will be more over the years? Where have all the money saved the Singaporeans gone to? I can think of two big holes. The depreciating assets in the homes they paid for and the money lost in the stock market. How much were lost? My ballpark figures are in the billions. Maybe more than $10 billions. But with $30k in medisave and $80k minimum in CPF savings, would not that make retired Singaporeans filthy rich? Why is $110k minimum of strong S$ be considered not enough? Not enough according to who? Many around the world would be thinking a a happy retirement with this kind of money in their savings. What is wrong with these numbers? What happens when all the money is not enough? Cost of living, the cost to keep one alive in Singapore is getting ridiculously high. A retired Singaporean must have at least $110k in their retirement fund and still considered short when all he needs is a roof over his head and his 3 meals. What are the basis of computation? Still want to travel around the world, live in 5 stars hospital, swinging with dance partners, enjoying fine dining? I would think many would be lying on their backs staring at the ceiling and with no appetite to eat. Can't see much or hear much. Should keeping an ageing person alive cost so much?
at

5 comments:

  1. AnonymousAugust 02, 2006 1:55 am

    Hi,

    Simple, almost all average singaporean has 80% in property and 20% in cash/cpf/investment. And in the principle of financial planning, this is 'an accident waiting to happen.' (Retirement is gonna be grey instead of Golden!)

    The question to ask is, since almost everyone live in HDB (aka public housing) Why isn't there enough money in our cpf for retirement?

    Is it priced too high? Resulting in longer loan term and thus paying more in interests?

    Or that most average person nowsaday lose their job at a prime age of 40 to 50? With a loan to service and can't find employment after that? Thus deplicting whatever money they have to service the housing loan and expenses?

    Of cos the killer one is definitely car ownership, paying thru our noses and every other holes available just to be seen driving a car to impress mostly people we dont know or like and have it scrape off in 10 years or 'now' earlier. The money spent on this 'one' can most definitely be put to better use if invested in assets yielding returns rather than a car, which in singapore is classified as 'liability'

    Last, but not least, as you pointed our at your post's ending...... The Living Standard has moved so far ahead. (Mr. Brown's 'famed' article sum it up most approprately)

    My 2 cents worth =)

    PS- enjoyed reading your posts.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Chua Chin Leng蔡镇龍 aka redbeanAugust 02, 2006 9:23 am

    hi anonymous,

    you got all the points there. we have been a nation of waste. we were wasting our hard earned money and burning them away without any complaint. all because of a foolish thought. the people got money, make them pay as much as they can afford to pay.

    so we have car prices, hdb flats, hospital wards, education, transport fares, and now almost anything. everything is price not according to its real value but on how much to squeeze from the people. and the people pay and pay as if tomorrow is always better.

    now we are cheering again that people are throwing away their hard earned savings in their medisave to pay for more luxury in hospital beds.

    thrift and prudence are bad words.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousAugust 02, 2006 10:16 am

    redbean, i guess only waste products like you can live in a nation of waste. Shitapore, indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Chua Chin Leng蔡镇龍 aka redbeanAugust 02, 2006 12:30 pm

    hi redbeen,

    there is something i always like to remind people who condemn quitters. many quitters who have been here long enough would always be attached to this shithole. The emotional bond, maybe negative, will still be there. Singapore is part of them. They may be unhappy over certain things or people or policies, but they are still Singaporeans at heart.

    That's the reason why they still come visiting, keeping in touch with the news, or with their friends. It is something very difficult to explain. Something like an intrinsic bond between family members. They can hate each other, but still know that they come from the same family.

    you are always welcome here to chat redbeen.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousMarch 07, 2007 7:16 am

    You have an outstanding good and well structured site. I enjoyed browsing through it » » »

    ReplyDelete