Why CPF Life payout keep dropping?

Thick Face Black Heart said:

Let's cut the long story short. Please answer these questions:

(a) Why are Singaporeans unable to retire in grace? Why has our CPF which is supposed to help us retire failed us?

Click to expand...

CPF was not intended to help sinkees to retire but to allow the government to get cheap funds.

(b) Why are the monthly payouts subject to the whim of the govt which can decrease it anytime based on changes in mortality rates and inflation rates?

Click to expand...

Same reply as above.

(c) Does the govt serious expect a person to survive on a few hundred dollars of CPF Life payouts every month when the cost of living is so bloody high?

Click to expand...

The government does not give a hoot.

(d) Why is our CPF savings interest rate one of the lowest if not the lowest of all national-level retirement schemes in the world?

Click to expand...

To pay more means the cost of borrowing goes up for the government and that would defeat the intended purpose of using the CPF to get cheap money.

wwabbit said:

The concerns that you have expressed are actually against the CPF-OA, and I do agree with many of them. However, these concerns don't really have anything to with the CPF Life which is the topic of this discussion. The SDP manifesto proposes completely doing away with OA, focusing on SA/RA and converting MS into a single payer healthcare scheme, and I can see the merits of that proposal. However, simply raising the interest rate of our OA is a terrible solution - there will some dire consequences of that. If you like, we can continue to discuss this on a separate thread.

I think the the majority of Singaporeans should be able to survive with the CPF Life payouts assuming that the minimum sum is met and housing is paid up. I will be able to survive on $800/month today (based on $100k in CPF Life) although I probably have to give up on a car. Those that need more are probably living a more extravagant lifestyle, and either will need to cut down, move to a cheaper country, or they most likely already have more savings outside of CPF. Now there is a concern about the people that don't meet the minimum sum, and I think more should be done to the government to help these people.

Click to expand...

Question is, if raising interest rate is supposed to be disastrous as you claim (presumably because housing loan rates will have to rise too?), how did we get into this situation in the first place? Why is that housing is so inextricably linked to CPF such that the CPF's primary purpose of providing for retirement has been destroyed? Why is our interest rate so low, but property prices allowed to rise to high that they take out huge chunks of our CPF?

Simply put CPF has failed to give Singaporeans a decent retirement. $800 per month CPF Life payout is also bullshit. Eat plain bread and drink water everyday? Don't take public tpt, just go stroll in park? Maybe can. But many people deserve better than that.

Thick Face Black Heart said:

(a) Why are Singaporeans unable to retire in grace? Why has our CPF which is supposed to help us retire failed us?

Click to expand...

This is a loaded question which makes presumptions that I'm not sure can be substantiated. Most Singaporeans are able to retire in grace, and the CPF has worked for most Singaporeans. There are exceptions of course, but that doesn't mean the whole thing is a failure. We will need to look at the exceptions in a case by case basis to see what the issue is, so if you know of such cases, perhaps you can elaborate on what happened.

These are the few cases I've seen so far that I can think of:

1. People with very little money in CPF because they are self-employed and never put money in their own CPF. They squander their cash and during retirement their CPF isn't enough to support them. The failure here I think is not with the CPF core, but the failure to set rules to compel self-employed people to contribute to their own CPF.

2. People that for some reason lose their house after retirement and have to pay rent with their monthly payouts. This is not really a problem with the CPF itself.

3. People that have to continue to work beyond retirement to support a more extravagant lifestyle than they can afford if they do not work. Not a problem with CPF which only specifies a minimum that you have to save. If you want to spend more during retirement then you need to save more when you are working. Sure, you can complain that cost of living in Singapore is high, but this is a cost of living issue not a CPF issue.

(b) Why are the monthly payouts subject to the whim of the govt which can decrease it anytime based on changes in mortality rates and inflation rates?

Click to expand...

This is a standard thing used by all pension funds and financial institutes that sell annuity products, and it's not unique to the Singapore government. It's based on the basic financial concept known as the "Time value of money", there is a comprehensive article on wikipedia if you would like to know more about it. The same also applies if you manage your retirement funds by yourself.

Let's say at age 65, you have $100,000 and you somehow manage to find a bank that will give you 5% interest rate. You know that you will live exactly 20 years and will die at age 85. How much money then can you take out of the bank monthly so that when you die at 85, your balance is exactly $0? This can be worked out with a TVM calculator, e.g. http://www.zenwealth.com/businessfinanceonline/TVM/TVMCalculator.html Set PV=$100000, Rate=5%, Periods=240, FV=$0, Monthly. Click on PMT to calculate the monthly payout, which will be $660. Now, see what happens if the interest rate changes to 6%, the payout increases to $716. If interest rate changes to 4%, then payout decrease to $606. If instead you expect to live 25 years until age 90, change Periods to 300, and the payout reduces to $585 for 5% interest rate.

(c) Does the govt serious expect a person to survive on a few hundred dollars of CPF Life payouts every month when the cost of living is so bloody high?

Click to expand...

Assuming that your house is fully paid up, then yes, you can survive on a few hundred dollars per month in spite of the high cost of living, spending only on necessities. If you want to live a bit more extravagantly in your retirement, then you will need to save more money than the CPF compels you to with the Minimum Sum.

(d) Why is our CPF savings interest rate one of the lowest if not the lowest of all national-level retirement schemes in the world?

Click to expand...

This is another loaded question. You will need to provide evidence of this. Also, note that you will need to take into account national interest rate as well as inflation rate when doing the comparison. Also, since you are comparing retirement schemes, you should be comparing against the CPF-RA rate of 4% + 1% bonus for first $60k

wwabbit said:

This is another loaded question. You will need to provide evidence of this. Also, note that you will need to take into account national interest rate as well as inflation rate when doing the comparison. Also, since you are comparing retirement schemes, you should be comparing against the CPF-RA rate of 4% + 1% bonus for first $60k

Click to expand...

It's good to see that there are actually a handful of members of this forum who talk sense and back up what they're saying with facts, figures and formulae.

I have added to your points for a job well done. We need more of your sort here.

wwabbit said:

This is a loaded question which makes presumptions that I'm not sure can be substantiated. Most Singaporeans are able to retire in grace, and the CPF has worked for most Singaporeans. There are exceptions of course, but that doesn't mean the whole thing is a failure. We will need to look at the exceptions in a case by case basis to see what the issue is, so if you know of such cases, perhaps you can elaborate on what happened.

Click to expand...

Most sinkees are able to retire in grace? What have you been smoking? The government doesn't even dare to publish detail data on the median amount in CPF account for those in the retirement years. Wonder why?

1. People with very little money in CPF because they are self-employed and never put money in their own CPF. They squander their cash and during retirement their CPF isn't enough to support them. The failure here I think is not with the CPF core, but the failure to set rules to compel self-employed people to contribute to their own CPF.

Click to expand...

How many people choose the path of self-employment? For most, it is not of choice but of necessity, thanks to government policy of bringing millions of foreigners to displace sinkees.
The CPF as a tool for retirement savings is a dismal failure. Please don't defend the indefensible. You pretend to be logical, yet you make sweeping claims.

2. People that for some reason lose their house after retirement and have to pay rent with their monthly payouts. This is not really a problem with the CPF itself.

Click to expand...

Why is this not a problem of CPF? The CPF was intended for retirement savings. Yet, the government used it to facilitate home ownership because it priced social housing beyond the reach of average wage. The only way for people to own their social housing is to tap into their retirement savings. The government will never stop this because it will reveal how unaffordable public housing is.

3. People that have to continue to work beyond retirement to support a more extravagant lifestyle than they can afford if they do not work. Not a problem with CPF which only specifies a minimum that you have to save. If you want to spend more during retirement then you need to save more when you are working. Sure, you can complain that cost of living in Singapore is high, but this is a cost of living issue not a CPF issue.

Click to expand...

Another sweeping claim. People have to work till they die because they could not earn enough to save sufficiently. Add in the ridiculous prices of public housing, there isn't much left for retirement.
The solution is to have public pension instead of compulsory savings. The government won't go that route because it will lose the avenue of cheap funds from the CPF.

Let's say at age 65, you have $100,000 and you somehow manage to find a bank that will give you 5% interest rate. You know that you will live exactly 20 years and will die at age 85. How much money then can you take out of the bank monthly so that when you die at 85, your balance is exactly $0? This can be worked out with a TVM calculator, e.g. http://www.zenwealth.com/businessfinanceonline/TVM/TVMCalculator.html Set PV=$100000, Rate=5%, Periods=240, FV=$0, Monthly. Click on PMT to calculate the monthly payout, which will be $660. Now, see what happens if the interest rate changes to 6%, the payout increases to $716. If interest rate changes to 4%, then payout decrease to $606. If instead you expect to live 25 years until age 90, change Periods to 300, and the payout reduces to $585 for 5% interest rate.

Click to expand...

Face the reality of life in sinkapore - one's earning capacity is short. Your career is likely to end in your early forties as employers seek to replace you with a cheaper foreigner. That gives you about 15 years to save for retirement and pay off your public housing. How much can you save given that short time?

Assuming that your house is fully paid up, then yes, you can survive on a few hundred dollars per month in spite of the high cost of living, spending only on necessities. If you want to live a bit more extravagantly in your retirement, then you will need to save more money than the CPF compels you to with the Minimum Sum.

Click to expand...

What kind of existence is that? You work for a lifetime and all you can look forward to is few hundred bucks income at retirement. And you call that a success story?
The Ontario Teachers Pension Plan provides 60 percent income of the 5 best years. To earn that, they contribute 12 percent of their income, matched by the employers. It is fully funded and can continue paying the benefits for decades.
With a larger population, why can't the CPF be a pension plan? The reason is simple - the CPF was never established for retirement savings - it was intended as an avenue for cheap funds for the government.

This is another loaded question. You will need to provide evidence of this. Also, note that you will need to take into account national interest rate as well as inflation rate when doing the comparison. Also, since you are comparing retirement schemes, you should be comparing against the CPF-RA rate of 4% + 1% bonus for first $60k

Click to expand...

Let's cut the crap of national interest. If the people benefits, then that is national interest. National interest is not defined by the government.
Why don't you compare the CPF scheme against defined benefit plans? You will see how ludicrous the CPF is.

winnipegjets said:

Most sinkees are able to retire in grace? What have you been smoking? The government doesn't even dare to publish detail data on the median amount in CPF account for those in the retirement years. Wonder why?

Click to expand...

You're such a whiner. You paint a picture of despair and poverty throughout the country but in reality, only a small proportion of Singaporeans are in financial difficulties in their old age.

While I may be overseas, there are scores of friends and relatives, all "true blue" sinkies that I keep in touch with on a regular basis on NONE of them is in the state that you mention ie fired at 40, destitute, struggling to make ends meet and so on.

My cohort is well over 50. All have decent jobs and assets to their name or are semi retired or fully retired.

All their children are gainfully employed and many are earning excellent salaries. In fact, I was aghast at just how much some were earning at such a young age.

All the parents of my cohort who are still around face no financial problems. Many are having a fine time travelling and helping to look after grandchildren and doing the usual sort of stuff that old folks enjoy. None of them collect cardboard boxes or sell tissues.

Are there people who are struggling? Of course there are but then so too are there such people in other developed countries too.

You like painting Canada as a land of milk and honey but if that is the case, how do you explain articles like this one?

http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/news/10-things-you-might-not-know-about-poverty-in-canada

All fabricated or something that you conveniently ignore while touting the superiority of the Canadian system over the CPF scheme?

10 Things You Might Not Know About Poverty In Canada
OCTOBER 17, 2013
Tweet

<small>(Photo: Reuters)</small>
In 1993, the UN designated October 17 the International Day for the Eradication of Poverty, and later adopted the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger as the core of its Millennium Development Goals. The theme for this year is "Working together towards a world without discrimination: Building on the experience and knowledge of people in extreme poverty."
To mark the day, here are some things about poverty in Canada that you might not know:
[h=2]10. It's hard to measure[/h]There is no official measure of poverty in Canada. Statistics Canada reports that 14.9 per cent of Canadians have "low income" (i.e. make less than half the median income) but declines to label that group "poor." Low income is only one way of measuring poverty, though; another is the "basic needs poverty measure," which looks at the absolute minimum resources needed to fulfill physical well-being. The "market basket measure," created by the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, takes a similar approach with a broader range of goods and services, estimating the disposable income needed to meet basic needs. In 2008, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) noted that poverty had been steadily rising in Canada since the mid-1990s.
[h=2]9. It varies widely between different groups[/h]Regardless of how you try to measure poverty, certain groups are worse off than others. A study by the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives found that Aboriginal Canadians make about 30 per cent less than the rest of Canadians. Other groups more likely to be affected by poverty include lone parents, recent immigrants, people with disabilites and seniors, according to Statistics Canada.
[h=2]8. Child poverty is high in Canada[/h]Canada ranks behind the average in a recent UNICEF survey of child poverty in rich nations. According to the report, 13.3 per cent of Canadian children live in poverty, compared to 11 per cent across the 35 "economically advanced countries" studied. According to one study, half of First Nations children in Canada live in poverty.
[h=2]7. It's a significant burden on the economy[/h]Poverty can exert extra health care, crime and social assistance costs. According to an estimate from the Ontario Association of Food Banks, poverty costs that province betwen 5.5 and 6.6 per cent of its Gross Domestic Product. That same report pegs the national health care costs attributable to poverty at $7.6 billion.
[h=2]6. Many Canadians spend too much on shelter[/h]In 1986, the federal and provincial governments established a threshold of housing affordability set at 30 per cent of a resident's monthly income. By that standard, a full quarter — or 3.3 million households — in Canada are paying more than they should on housing, according to data from the National Household Survey released this year.
[h=2]5. Poverty can shorten your life[/h]An analysis by The Hamilton Spectator showed that there was a 21-year gap in life expectancy between that city's richest and poorest neighbourhoods.
[h=2]4. Many don't have enough to eat[/h]According to Food Banks Canada, nearly 900,000 Canadians are assisted by food banks each month. Thirty-eight per cent of those helped by food banks are children and youth and 11 per cent are Aboriginal (compared to 4.3 per cent of the total population).
[h=2]3. Homelessness is widespread[/h]As many as 200,000 Canadians will experience homelessness each year, according to a recent report from the Canadian Homelessness Research Network. On any given night, about 30,000 Canadians are homeless.
[h=2]2. Debt levels are on the rise[/h]Last month, Statistics Canada reported that the Canadian household debt-to-income ratio had climbed to a new high of 163.4 per cent — in other words, the average Canadian owes $1.63 for every dollar they earn.
[h=2]1. Early investment can yield big dividends[/h]A 2008 report from the Public Health Agency of Canada argues that reducing child poverty can have huge spillover effects on society. "It is estimated that $1 invested in the early years saves between $3 and $9 in future spending on the health and criminal justice systems, as well as on social assistance," the report says.

Leongsam said:

You're such a whiner. You paint a picture of despair and poverty throughout the country but in reality, only a small proportion of Singaporeans are in financial difficulties in their old age.

While I may be overseas, there are scores of friends and relatives, all "true blue" sinkies that I keep in touch with on a regular basis on NONE of them is in the state that you mention ie fired at 40, destitute, struggling to make ends meet and so on.

My cohort is well over 50. All have decent jobs and assets to their name or are semi retired or fully retired.

All their children are gainfully employed and many are earning excellent salaries. In fact, I was aghast at just how much some were earning at such a young age.

Click to expand...

You have not seen the homeless and destitute in Singapore. My friends are like yours too, but that does not stop me from seeing the other side of Singapore where 70 year old aunties work in coffeeshops cleaning tables and trash, and old men sleep shirtless in HDB void decks and in neighbourhood park benches. Don't think everyone is like you and your pals.

In Singapore it is govt policy that causes a lot of heartache for the locals. The mismanagement of the CPF scheme which we inherited from the British is one of them. It started off as a good retirement scheme, but it is degenerated into an escrow account to pay for wildly overpriced HDB flats. Because Singaporeans use so much money to purchase their homes, they have less to retire on and cannot retire in grace. This is the stark reality.

Thick Face Black Heart said:

You have not seen the homeless and destitute in Singapore. My friends are like yours too, but that does not stop me from seeing the other side of Singapore where 70 year old aunties work in coffeeshops cleaning tables and trash, and old men sleep shirtless in HDB void decks and in neighbourhood park benches. Don't think everyone is like you and your pals.

In Singapore it is govt policy that causes a lot of heartache for the locals. The mismanagement of the CPF scheme which we inherited from the British is one of them. It started off as a good retirement scheme, but it is degenerated into an escrow account to pay for wildly overpriced HDB flats. Because Singaporeans use so much money to purchase their homes, they have less to retire on and cannot retire in grace. This is the stark reality.

Click to expand...

But I'm not saying that there are no hard luck stories in Singapore. What I am saying is that there exist down and out members of society in every country on earth.

They are visible when I walk the streets of London. I saw a whole bunch when I was in Vancouver. Japan is full of homeless even though they have not let in any foreign talent and are a very homogeneous society.

Numbers and percentages may vary from city to city and country to country and I'm 100% sure that most other countries are in a far worse state than Singapore is. The stats speak for themselves.

I have lived in various countries and I can assure you that the CPF scheme is an excellent one by world standards.

Thick Face Black Heart said:

Question is, if raising interest rate is supposed to be disastrous as you claim (presumably because housing loan rates will have to rise too?), how did we get into this situation in the first place? Why is that housing is so inextricably linked to CPF such that the CPF's primary purpose of providing for retirement has been destroyed? Why is our interest rate so low, but property prices allowed to rise to high that they take out huge chunks of our CPF?

Click to expand...

Lol, don't look at me to defend CPF-OA. I'm personally not comfortable with CPF-OA either. If you look at my posts, I have never defended CPF-OA, but I have defended CPF-SA/RA/Life which is really the point of this thread. Anyway, HDB loans isn't really the issue - you can take bank loan instead of HDB loan and currently bank loan interest rate is much lower than the HDB loan interest rate - I've found it silly that HDB 'concessionary' rates don't even try to match bank rates. The main issue is that prices of HDB flats end up getting pegged to the CPF interest rate, mainly because of the need to pay back accrued interest if you sell your HDB flat. Naturally this will affect inflation too. Because of this, I'd rather see the whole CPF-OA scheme being scrapped instead of increasing the interest rate. Anyway I'm not too bothered with the CPF-OA myself since I simply take out most of the money from CPF-OA and invest in funds with yields a lot higher than the CPF rate.

Simply put CPF has failed to give Singaporeans a decent retirement. $800 per month CPF Life payout is also bullshit. Eat plain bread and drink water everyday? Don't take public tpt, just go stroll in park? Maybe can. But many people deserve better than that.

Click to expand...

I think if you eat economic rice at a coffee shop, you can survive on $10 per day for meals, spending $300 per month. As a retiree you won't be commuting to work everyday, also you get senior citizen concessions on public transport.

Anyway, $800 per month was just an example. I went back to check the payouts for $100k in the retirement account and the payout is closer to $900. For the majority of people with the minimum sum of $148k in retirement account, the payout will be around $1250 / month.

The CPF Life only allows you to put up to the minimum sum into the life annuity, and the minimum sum is determined such that low income earners can sustain a low income lifestyle. If you are a middle income earner, you will have balance in your CPF account over the minimum sum which you an withdraw at age 55 and do anything you like with it. If you have been smart, you would probably have taken up a non-CPF saving plan during your working years which will mature when you retire. You can choose to squander it all within a year, and then survive on your CPF Life payouts for the rest of your live. You can also put the money in a bank and slowly draw from it to supplement whatever you receive from CPF Life payout. You can also use the money to buy another Life Annuity Plan from another firm to supplement your life annuity from CPF Life.

Leongsam said:

It's good to see that there are actually a handful of members of this forum who talk sense

Click to expand...

talking sense? allowing the government to forcefully take away your own right to utilize your own monies in which ever way you want and not standing up against it is good sense? what ever you're smoking, i'd like to have some.

wwabbit said:

Lol, don't look at me to defend CPF-OA.

Click to expand...

thank goodness you're not defending CPF-OA.

wwabbit,

I'm sure you've heard of the oft-mentioned phrase "asset rich but cash poor", in relation to Singaporeans. Its been around close to two decades. And guess what, it's not going away anytime soon. So unless I can see substantial statistics proving that the vast majority of Singaporeans retire in grace, I am going to question your premise much the same way as you are questioning mine.

Old ladies pushing card-board boxes on Geylang Lorong 1 (despite the fact they have a $200,000 HDB flat in their name), octogenarians cleaning tables at hawker centres and food courts, shirtless old men sleeping at void decks and neighbourhood parks and east coast beach, are all well documented instances of the forgotten poor of Singapore. Where is their CPF and what is the CPF doing for them?

I'm perfectly well acquainted with TVM, having programmed excel spreadsheets and macro subroutines based on all sorts of TVM calculations. Of course if you start with $100,000 you can't get much out of it by forcing it to be stretched all the way till the day you die. What happened to the rest of the money? It went into property. And right now given property prices, even more of young people's CPF will go into property, so many of them when they grow old won't even have the $100,000 (in present value terms) to begin with. You can't argue this is a property problem rather than a CPF problem, because the govt has converted the CPF which is supposed to be a retirement scheme into a property escrow account, in essence subverting the original intent and encouraging speculation using precious savings. And all this while letting property get out of control thus effectively crippling Singaporeans ability to retire in grace.

Also why are Singaporeans being forced to accept the risk free interest rate when GIC and Temasek are earning a lot higher. Surely there is scope to remit some of the excess returns back to Singaporeans. And why are Singaporeans forced to invest in the govt annuity and not given a broad range of choices? I don't accept the argument that govt annuity scheme in order to be sustainable must be compulsory, because local run insurance firms can also sustain their operations even though obviously they are not getting every Singaporean as their client.

This returns me to the original thread title of "why CPF life payout keeps dropping". Yes isn't that the whole problem? The purchasing power of money keeping dropping and yet payout keeps dropping too. Isn't that a double whammy for Singaporeans? Why isn't our budget surplus used to plug the gap?

If as you say people can be smart and make additional retirement schemes over and above CPF life, then why can't more CPF funds be released to allow people to make their own judgment calls? I still believe in giving people a choice because I don't believe govt will always be the best financier and I don't believe in restricting the fundamental freedoms of the people. So the issue for me is philosophical, political and financial, and I see no easy answer.

wwabbit said:

Lol, don't look at me to defend CPF-OA. I'm personally not comfortable with CPF-OA either. If you look at my posts, I have never defended CPF-OA, but I have defended CPF-SA/RA/Life which is really the point of this thread. .

Click to expand...

But without CPF OA, how will CPF SA and CPF Life even exist? They are linked at the hipbone.

If you try to have CPF SA without OA, then the young people are going to lock up all their savings with even less investment options than presently available. Then truly our effective tax rate will be 20% higher than presently reported by the government.

CPF Life was brought in because the original tenet of CPF (OA) could not be met. It failed to serve it original purpose. Besides acting as a housing and medical escrow for the government the returns did not come close to any of the returns enjoyed by many of the well run pension funds that you find across many developed countries.

Singing praises about CPF Life is like praising the discovery of drugs to cure herpes. Akin to having the best padlock in a crime infested neighbourhood and telling everyone about the padlock.

And the point of this post surely is not about the padlock but why is the neighbourhood crime infested in the first place.

Developed countries offer choices about pension and superannuation funds and there are laws governing it. Filling paperwork shows that there are choices and you decide the risk appetite that you prefer.

You actually took the trouble to write this long essay. This is the same chap that took an extract of our laws to show that dual citizenship was prohibited not realising that is not what it meant.

He has the habit of being selective and this is another one of those arguments. Nobody enacts laws for pension funds on the basis that people squander money or are financially indisciplined. The intention is to tide them over when they retire and are no longer drawing an income. Size of funds pooled in a communal basis brings in better returns to keep up with inflation and protect against the occasional financial stress that economies face.

If this govt invested the funds and all returns minus expenses are returned to the fund, CPF members would be well-off. Instead part of the returns goes into the govt coffers. Imagine 13%. I am well aware that the Govt provides a guarantee. If they did not, they would thrown out at the next elections.

Thick Face Black Heart said:

wwabbit,

I'm sure you've heard of the oft-mentioned phrase "asset rich but cash poor", in relation to Singaporeans. Its been around close to two decades. And guess what, it's not going away anytime soon. So unless I can see substantial statistics proving that the vast majority of Singaporeans retire in grace, I am going to question your premise much the same way as you are questioning mine.

Click to expand...

scroobal said:

CPF Life was brought in because the original tenet of CPF (OA) could not be met. It failed to serve it original purpose.

Click to expand...

never once liked the idea of CPF LIFE since word got out it was to be compulsory annuity. maybe the Black Centrepoint event wasn't well publicized. and where on earth is thinkall now?

When someone praises CPF Life and you ask them what is the purpose of CPF OA then you should see how dumbfounded they look. Totally stuck - brain freeze. Then they start to mumble and you can see how foolish they look.

Occasionally a nutter will come out with the usual Batam story and how the money was squandered.

zhihau said:

never once liked the idea of CPF LIFE since word got out it was to be compulsory annuity. maybe the Black Centrepoint event wasn't well publicized. and where on earth is thinkall now?

Click to expand...

zhihau said:

talking sense? allowing the government to forcefully take away your own right to utilize your own monies in which ever way you want and not standing up against it is good sense? what ever you're smoking, i'd like to have some.

Click to expand...

If CPF was voluntary, very few would participate as it is human nature to opt for instant gratification whenever it is readily available.

As for forcibly taking money all taxes come under this category. They are a necessary evil in order for society to function. The socialist states take far more than the Singapore government does.

scroobal said:

You actually took the trouble to write this long essay. This is the same chap that took an extract of our laws to show that dual citizenship was prohibited not realising that is not what it meant.

Click to expand...

hahaha....scroobal, u got the thickest hide on earth......
for years u have been bullshitting that Singapore allows dual citizenship......
despite being proven wrong with black and white, u still have the cheek to talk about dual citizenship and suaning other pple.....