Singaporeans need to shoulder the blame on CPF.

[scroobal]

As I read the numerous threads and posts about the CPF mess that we are in I realised many of us have little ability to frame the key issues and address them. The end result is a confused mess.

Example
The issue is CPF, a central provident fund for one's retirement. Instead we hear posting about how they run their own business, how to invest, making comments about not relying on CPF. When someone ask you about the quality of the latest Mercedes 230. I am sure you are not going to talk about MRT, cheaper to take taxi, or use the bus. This has nothing to do with your investment prowess or how you run your own business.

The key issue are
The poor management of the CPF and the accountability and transparency of the Govt. The central issues are
1) the moving goalposts in relation to the minimum sum and the withdrawal age. In essence what do those who are no longer in employment do to look after themselves until they reach the age of 65.
2) the poor rate of return and the inability to keep up with inflation (rising costs)
3) those parties enriching themselves by treating the CPF as cheap source of investment funds.

There are already 2 PAP (yes, PAP MPs) and 1 NMP who have called for higher rate of return from CPF in parliament yesterday.

Frankly read Roy's blog if you have no idea how to address this.

Pointless telling us how at the age of 2 you started your first business and after the great floods of Bukit Timah in 2010, you lost it all and then re-started and now at the age of 23 you are semi-retired. And then go on to explain what is passive income. These are all helpful and useful but this help the CPF and how it should help society and those that need to rely on it.

 

[Leongsam]

Pointless telling us how at the age of 2 you started your first business and after the great floods of Bukit Timah in 2010, you lost it all and then re-started and now at the age of 23 you are semi-retired. And then go on to explain what is passive income. These are all helpful and useful but this help the CPF and how it should help society and those that need to rely on it.

CPF cannot be discussed in isolation. It has to be seen in the context of overall financial security after retirement.

If the discussion is restricted to the pros and cons of the CPF scheme, many might end up with the erroneous impression that if CPF is "fixed" to their satisfaction, then their retirement is secure and they'll be able to cruise through their twilight years without a financial care in the world.

Nothing can be further from the truth. No pension scheme is sufficient for a comfortable old age. Pension schemes have to be supplemented with other investments which yield a reasonable return.

 

[soIsee]

Question time again.

Poor rate of return and some in the PAP camp right now are saying to increase it.

Can they return the 20 over years of cheating behind the CPF member's back before harping on wanting to increase the return?

If they are to return as promised earlier, all the funds when one turned 55, is the Board able to do so without any short fall in their cash horde, right now? LoL

 

[frenchbriefs]

This forum people like to make a lot of funny analogies....CPF is not a Mercedes Benz....warren buffet is a Mercedes Benz...when talking about CPF we are talking about a double decker bus and whether it just came from lucky plaza and is full of pinoys.

 

[winners]

Sinkies should have known better about the PAP regime and the way they are handling the CPF, especially those who are in their late 40s now because you should have sufficient time to monitor and predict the outcome.

Take me for example, I had planned to shift out of Sinkie Land some 13 years ago and with this plan in mind, I try to legally exploit whatever I can out from my CPF in order to have recurring cash income for my present retirement. There's no point crying over spilled milk now. 2 of my nephews had also taken a leaf from me and are following the same path as me.

 

[hockbeng]

CPF cannot be discussed in isolation. It has to be seen in the context of overall financial security after retirement.

If the discussion is restricted to the pros and cons of the CPF scheme, many might end up with the erroneous impression that if CPF is "fixed" to their satisfaction, then their retirement is secure and they'll be able to cruise through their twilight years without a financial care in the world.

Nothing can be further from the truth. No pension scheme is sufficient for a comfortable old age. Pension schemes have to be supplemented with other investments which yield a reasonable return.

goondosammy!

all i want is the Gov to get out of my life as much as possible

best is dont take any of my money cos i only trust 1 person; me!

 

[soIsee]

Sinkies should have known better about the PAP regime and the way they are handling the CPF, especially those who are in their late 40s now because you should have sufficient time to monitor and predict the outcome.

Take me for example, I had planned to shift out of Sinkie Land some 13 years ago and with this plan in mind, I try to legally exploit whatever I can out from my CPF in order to have recurring cash income for my present retirement. There's no point crying over spilled milk now. 2 of my nephews had also taken a leaf from me and are following the same path as me.

Running away from your problems?

Well that's heroic.

Ah Roy would be SO PROUD of you, your nephews and your strategy for being able to go round the problems you encounter in your own HOMELAND!

"Congrats!" LoL

 

[frenchbriefs]

Running away from your problems?

Well that's heroic.

Ah Roy would be SO PROUD of you, your nephews and your strategy for being able to go round the problems you encounter in your own HOMELAND!

"Congrats!" LoL

What's wrong with running away dumbass?have u opened ur eyes? We are surrounded by 2 million awolees.yes a.w.o.l. these deserters should be rounded up and shot!!!

 

[winners]

Running away from your problems?

Well that's heroic.

Ah Roy would be SO PROUD of you, your nephews and your strategy for being able to go round the problems you encounter in your own HOMELAND!

"Congrats!" LoL

At least I'm being relieved from the tortures by the PAP. Only fools like you are still around to kpkb, but can't do anything about the situation. At the end of the day, patriotism to your kind will not fulfill your stomach and your 3 daily meals. Wake up to reality idiot.

 

[soIsee]

Typical m&d style of 'progress' lah

Renounce citizenship>take cpf>buy house in JB>brag in internet.

But come back here to do MacDonald and Pizza Hut delivery jobs cos the employer here, pay them in Sing Dollars riding a JB registered bike!

Super!

Sounds too good a deal to be true! LoL

 

[winners]

But come back here to do MacDonald and Pizza Hut delivery jobs cos the employer here, pay them in Sing Dollars riding a JB registered bike!

Super!

Sounds too good a deal to be true! LoL

Yeah, I'd really pity these because the daily exhaust pollution at the customs from the motorcycle engines would have shorten their lives tremendously. Luckily I'm not and will never be one of them.

 

[frenchbriefs]

Yeah, I'd really pity these because the daily exhaust pollution at the customs from the motorcycle engines would have shorten their lives tremendously. Luckily I'm not and will never be one of them.

Why u look down on them?this is the burden of the poor.without the poor who will do hazardous or unhealthy work environments?

 

[winners]

Why u look down on them?this is the burden of the poor.without the poor who will do hazardous or unhealthy work environments?

I didn't. That's why I say I pity them. I know if they can be given a choice, who will not want to do a safer job? Just look at all those bloody reckless and selfish drivers in Sinkie Land. Just because they think they pay a much higher COE, all motorcycles must give way to them, no questions asked. And we even have 1 in this forum who have always advocated for motorcycles to be totally banned from the expressways on the pretext of concern for their own safety.

 

[zhihau]

The end result is a confused mess.

the only responsibility the Sinkies need to shoulder is for voting these kutus into parliament. if the PAP doesn't hold 2/3 majority in the parliament, you think these kutus can suka suka shift the goal posts meh?

 

[greedy and cunning]

This forum people like to make a lot of funny analogies....CPF is not a Mercedes Benz....warren buffet is a Mercedes Benz...when talking about CPF we are talking about a double decker bus and whether it just came from lucky plaza and is full of pinoys.

you find it funny because leongsam the english teacher neber tell you meaning of analogy.

an analogy is a comparison between two different things in order to highlight some point of similarity.

 

[frenchbriefs]

you find it funny because leongsam the english teacher neber tell you meaning of analogy.

an analogy is a comparison between two different things in order to highlight some point of similarity.

i dont think comparison is the correct definition,its more like using a different unreleated example or scenario that conveys the same point/message.

 

[OverTheCounter]

The issue is CPF, a central provident fund for one's retirement. Instead we hear posting about how they run their own business, how to invest, making comments about not relying on CPF. When someone ask you about the quality of the latest Mercedes 230. I am sure you are not going to talk about MRT, cheaper to take taxi, or use the bus. This has nothing to do with your investment prowess or how you run your own business.

There are already 2 PAP (yes, PAP MPs) and 1 NMP who have called for higher rate of return from CPF in parliament yesterday.

.

Presently, these are the main deficiencies of the CPF system:

(a) The government can change the rules arbitrarily either by increasing the Draw Down Age or by implementing new schemes like CPF Life to forcibly retain CPF members’ savings in their CPF accounts.

(b) More than half of CPF members cannot meet the Minimum Sum requirement and many cannot retire with peace of mind. The CPF system as a retirement scheme has failed because wages have not kept pace with inflation and have lagged very far behind the rapid increase in property prices over the past two decades.

(c) The incessant and rapid increases in the Minimum Sum have not helped Singaporeans retire better, because the root of the problem which is low and stagnant wages have not been addressed. You cannot improve the quality of life of our retirees by mandating that they set aside higher and higher sums of money in their CPF Retirement Accounts.

(d) Payouts under the CPF Life scheme are not indexed to the inflation rate. This poses a very grave risk to retirees, because if retirees live a long life, the purchasing power of their monthly annuity payouts will be gradually eroded by inflation, which is inexorable.

(e) Payouts under the CPF Life scheme are also subject to change if mortality rates change. Again this poses a serious risk to retirees who face uncertainties as to whether their payouts will remain stable over time.

In light of the above deficiencies of the CPF system, Singaporeans must also start to question why the CPF is earning such low returns and why the government has not been forthcoming as to how exactly CPF member funds are invested.

However, the investment mandate, total assets held, and total returns generated by MAS, GIC, and Temasek Holdings, are not subject to public scrutiny. What is unfair about the current arrangement is that the investment returns generated by the government are not given back to Singaporeans. We earn a paltry 2.5% to 4% on our CPF accounts, but every indication has been that GIC and Temasek have earned returns far in excess of that.

 

[OverTheCounter]

During boom times, the government was supposed to increase employer contribution rates again, but this did not always happen. After the dot-com bubble burst in 2000 and the economy recovered in 2003-2004, employer contribution rates were never restored to the same level as before. The government came out with another excuse — that this was to make Singapore more competitive, and in so doing, save more jobs. Again, the people were angered. Business interests seemed to be favoured over employee interests.

In order to ensure that all Singaporeans could own a home, the PAP government also made CPF funds available for the purchase of property.

However in recent years, as the prices of property started to appreciate rapidly, the CPF gradually evolved from what was originally a retirement scheme into an escrow account designed to ensure that Singaporeans would be able to pay for public housing that was rapidly becoming more expensive.

Escalating property prices mean that many Singaporeans can no longer retire with peace of mind, because their CPF accounts are being depleted by having to pay for expensive property. The young, in their prime working years, are heavily burdened by lengthy and expensive mortgages that become a fountain of debt.

The government also tells Singaporeans to rely on their CPF Medisave accounts and Medishield insurance to cover their hospitalization expenses. At the same time, the PAP government spends the least on healthcare as a percentage of GDP compared to other developed nations.

Clearly, the government is using the CPF system to transfer the burden of caring for the population’s healthcare needs back onto the individual.

Whilst self-reliance is a virtue, not enough is done to help those who fall between the cracks. The escalating cost of healthcare coupled with low government expenditure on healthcare as a percentage of GDP also means that Singaporeans are becoming increasingly burdened financially by their healthcare needs.

Therefore, the purpose of CPF as a retirement vehicle for Singaporeans has been perverted. The CPF has become woefully inadequate as a retirement scheme for Singaporeans because of rising costs and the lack of state support in containing these costs and helping the needy.

 

[Rossi]

This forum people like to make a lot of funny analogies....CPF is not a Mercedes Benz....warren buffet is a Mercedes Benz...when talking about CPF we are talking about a double decker bus and whether it just came from lucky plaza and is full of pinoys.

Ask Bernard Madoff.

 

[OverTheCounter]

How has the CPF minimum sum changed over the years? In 2003, the minimum sum, adjusted for inflation, was only $80,000! Five years later in 2008, it had become $106,000. And now, within the span of a decade, it has nearly doubled to $155,000. This represents a compounded rate of increase of slightly over 6 percent per annum for the eleven years from 2003 to 2014.

This increase in the CPF minimum sum is definitely not justified. Has the wage level increased by 6 percent per annum over this period? For the higher income earners, it has. But for many of the middle income earners and for almost all of the low income workers, it most certainly has not.

Hence, the rapid increase in the CPF minimum sum is making it harder and harder for Singaporeans in the middle and lower income brackets to withdraw their CPF savings and retire peacefully.

The situation is made even worse by the escalating price of property which is depleting CPF members’ accounts, leaving them little to retire on.

The government claims that the increase in CPF minimum sum to keep up with inflation and higher living standards. But a lot of the inflation in Singapore is generated by high property prices, which is the fault of the government!

Locking up more and more of CPF members’ savings is not the way to deal with inflation and a rising cost of living. The more savings are being locked up in the CPF, the harder it is more poorer Singaporeans to keep up with the cost of living when they retire.

The only sustainable way to help Singaporeans retire comfortably is to enact policies that control the cost of living, as well as policies that promote wage growth and fair employment without discrimination. The government has utterly failed on these counts.

Locking up more and more of CPF members’ savings will not solve the problem, as long as wage growth is not keep pace with inflation and the general cost of living. And as long as property prices continue to rise at such a fast pace, Singaporeans will have less and less to retire on.