APEC 2024 Peru. Biden shafted to a corner in the back row. Xi in front row next to Peru's President
8/31/2007
Annuity Scheme: A case of...
The Annuity scheme is a case of too little too late. The people who really need the annuity scheme are those lonely, jobless, no CPF and homeless in their 60s, 70s and 80s now.
Introducing the scheme will not benefit even those in their 60s as many are unemployed. Having the schemes for those in their 50s and below may lead to the question of how many will need them.
There is a big group of Singaporeans, those at least having a 4 rm flat, or even 3 rm flat, that will have family support, CPF, life insurance, savings, and probably work till they die. How relevant is the annuity scheme to these people?
The annuity scheme is a scheme that punishes the responsible and those who have planned and saved for their retirements.
The annuity scheme is one that punishes the majority because of a few irresponsible or unfortunate minorities.
The annuity scheme is a redundant and irrelevant scheme to those who have properties, savings and dependents.
The annuity scheme is a compulsory scheme that is neither here nor there, good for some but unnessary for others.
The annuity scheme is a wasteful scheme to those that die young. Given a population of 3 million, how many percent will live pass 85, how many will live pass 90? And how many of these will need the annuity scheme to live on?
If the annuity scheme gets through, it will be a bad precedent for any smart alec to dream of any feel good schemes to be made compulsory. I can easily think of a dozen that may even be more useful and meaningful than the annuity schemes to be made compulsory.
This annuity scheme should have being implemented earlier, I hope that's your message... but dun worry, nothing is too late....
ReplyDeletebetter late than not having one I suppose.... :-)
Redbean, IF your one-sided arguments ARE valid then the dudes implementing this scheme must be retards of the lowest kind..You really think so?
ReplyDeletenot really. a policy decision is made based on certain premises, which in this case one of them is that singaporeans are fools and cannot be depended on to look after their money.
ReplyDeletethe other part is the objectives and intention. i mean the unspoken intention.
i am very sure the annuity scheme fully satisfy their objectives and intention.
but what about the objectives and intention of the people? if you ask someone who have all their retirement plans worked out and all the money in their saving accounts and assets, the annuity scheme is a waste of time.
There is no need for annuity scheme.
ReplyDeletelet me explain......
The min sum withdrawal age is delay from 62 to 65 and later to 67. It is said that for every one year of delay, the interest earned will enable withdrawal of another year ie to say 5 years delay will add another 5 years to the existing 20 years. If 5 years is too long a figure lets assume it to be 3 years instead. The withdrawal will last till 67 + 23 = 90 years of age.
With a little reduction of the withdrawal amount from $790 to $650 or even $600, it should be able to last even longer.
For those that are unable to meet the min sum (provided they buy a modest HDB flat) then the govnerment should help them.....isn't that the extra 2% GST is for..... ie to help the poor.
First, set up a new DESTITUTE SUPPORT TRUST .. by collecting 1% GAMBLING surcharge from the casinos, with 50% govt contribution.
ReplyDeleteNext, force everyone to retire at 50 to travel the world as an appreciation/reward for their hard work and good service in helping SG build that $600,000,000,290 pie.
When young migrants come to work, and the oldies goes to play, SG will end up even more vibrant.
hi anonymous 4:14,
ReplyDeleteyour suggestions are very rational and logical. there were many similar suggestions in the media on this issue. if so many people can see an easier and more workable way to solve the problem without irritating the people affected by the proposal, i am sure our super talents too can see it.
the question is why are they not considering these suggestions but prefered a solution which the people are unhappy and unconvince of its goodness?
we cannot expect that policy makers are intentionally trying to make the people unhappy.
now why?
the casino income, the 2% gst, can these income be used to help the small group of people in their dying years? not all of them needs help. only some.
ReplyDeleteThe minority smart alecs can go on whining with all the silly reasons for all we care becos sooner or later the rest will realise the annuity scheme suggested by the govt IS the right way to go.
ReplyDeleteThis is a masterpiece of an idea which I suspect will be copied by other countries around us, when it is implemented and benefitting everyone.
the annuity is a practical idea. but the compulsory bit is shit.
ReplyDeletegood lord, you are preparing to live pass 85! anyone reaching 70 should be planning to die rather than planning to live on.
unless you are so rich and have all the means to support the expensive medical bills to keep you alive. or your genes are so good that you are free from sickness of old age.
the annuity is not enough if you have to feed the hospitals and their bills. one admission and you are finished off financially.