[h=1]CPF IS NOT THE ONLY WAY IN RETIREMENT PLANS[/h]
<!-- /.block --> <style>.node-article .field-name-ad-box-in-article {float: left;margin: 15px 15px 10px 0;}.node-article .field-tags{clear: both;}</style> Post date:
28 Jul 2014 - 4:06pm
<ins style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_1_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_1" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_1" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>
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.
Chua Chin Leng AKA RedBean
*The writer blogs at http://mysingaporenews.blogspot.com/
<!-- /.block --> <style>.node-article .field-name-ad-box-in-article {float: left;margin: 15px 15px 10px 0;}.node-article .field-tags{clear: both;}</style> Post date:
28 Jul 2014 - 4:06pm
<ins style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_1_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_1" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_1" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>
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.
Chua Chin Leng AKA RedBean
*The writer blogs at http://mysingaporenews.blogspot.com/
