Re: LHL says: Old people ask me not to return their CPF.Laughter and applause for pea
1. What is the main issue?
The issue is deprivation of CPF money, especially between 55~65, not impoverishment of CPF. We have a whopping $260 billion NET balance in CPF and the figure is growing each year.
2. What is the primary source of income, including retirement income?
It is obviously from our wages/salaries. Instead of addressing this issue during our working years (primary stage), the government is trying to address the issue during our retirement years (secondary and terminal stage).
3. Is raising of Minimum Sum a solution at all?
Instead of coming out with targetted solutions, the government is performing magic shows.
If inflation is high, we should target lower inflation. If healthcare/housing costs are high, we should lower them by subsidies. If population explosion is the cause, we should contain it. We should not go through the Maths wizardry of shortening the payout period and injecting more capital (raising Min. Sum) in order to boost CPF payouts so that people can afford the high costs of living. It is a magic show. Anyway, high costs of living affects everybody now, not just the future.
Changing a figure (Min. Sum) is a fake solution. The real money is from genuine sources (see point 2). Of course, monetisation of flats is another source of real money.
4. Returning our money is irresponsible?
Before we turn 55, we are allowed to speculate in a whole repertoire of products including property, gold, unit trust, others. But on the day we turn 55, suddenly we are treated as imbeciles and the government has to lock our money away. The illogic is stunning.
The excuse that retirees would squander away their money even at the ripe old age of 55 is poor. Would retirees invest $330 million in an education firm in Brazil?
If retirees outlive their money, the problem is at the last stretch of their lives. It is so strange of the government to short circuit the problem to present by withholding the personal money of retirees. Why spend taxpayers money now instead of when the need arises? Moreover, we all know half of Singaporeans will not live until 85 and beyond. So the agony is exaggerated by 2 times. (see next point)
5. It is all about the reserves, isn't it?
It is not difficult to work out the amount GIC is managing, including an expected $100 billion spending. The "significant sums of unencumbered monies" will become peanuts. That's why retaining the encumbered monies (CPF) is so important.
Singapore likes to act like a small country with a big voice. China desisted letting its currency appreciates. Singapore lets the S$ appreciates from $1.93 to $1.25 over 10 years. Our forex losses piled up and our exports got hurt too.
The government also has a better deal. Temasek is performing much better than GIC because it has a higher quality portfolio, not a higher-risks one. Just look at the high-dividend paying TLCs like DBS, SIA, Singtel, Keppel, etc. Moreover, they are in S$.
Investing retirement money in foreign currencies is a fundamental breach of investment ethics by the government. We should lobby for an immediate switching to local assets or for the return of our money.
Now the stingy nanny is opening up its purse. But is spending $100 billion on new MRT lines and others going to be money well-spent?
An ageing population is only a problem if the country is poor. If the $100 billion is used to spend on the people instead of importing foreigners inordinately and then having to spend on infrastructure, we won't have a problem. Human beings are mortals and will die one day. The pool of oldies will eventually stabilise even if new ones are joining the ranks every year. In fact, it is the importation of adults that causes and perpetuates an ageing population.
6. Are we under-saving or over-saving?
Govt savings = taxes - spending + investment income
By reducing healthcare subsidies from 70% to 30%, the government is generating savings
By selling land/properties at high prices, the government is generating savings
By raising GST from 3% to 7%, the government is generating savings
By raising foreign workers levies, the government is generating savings
By locking away investment income, the government is saving up
By creating income inequality, the Marginal Propensity to Save has gone up.
By locking away our CPF, we have been forced to save too much.
By encouraging home-ownership, we have been forced to save too much.
By making us buy all kinds of compulsory insurances (longevity, healthcare, etc.), we have been forced to save too much.
Anyone could see that our woes are due to over-saving. How the hell did the experts come to the opposite conclusion that we are not saving/investing (S=I) enough or the returns are not high enough?
1. What is the main issue?
The issue is deprivation of CPF money, especially between 55~65, not impoverishment of CPF. We have a whopping $260 billion NET balance in CPF and the figure is growing each year.
2. What is the primary source of income, including retirement income?
It is obviously from our wages/salaries. Instead of addressing this issue during our working years (primary stage), the government is trying to address the issue during our retirement years (secondary and terminal stage).
3. Is raising of Minimum Sum a solution at all?
Instead of coming out with targetted solutions, the government is performing magic shows.
If inflation is high, we should target lower inflation. If healthcare/housing costs are high, we should lower them by subsidies. If population explosion is the cause, we should contain it. We should not go through the Maths wizardry of shortening the payout period and injecting more capital (raising Min. Sum) in order to boost CPF payouts so that people can afford the high costs of living. It is a magic show. Anyway, high costs of living affects everybody now, not just the future.
Changing a figure (Min. Sum) is a fake solution. The real money is from genuine sources (see point 2). Of course, monetisation of flats is another source of real money.
4. Returning our money is irresponsible?
Before we turn 55, we are allowed to speculate in a whole repertoire of products including property, gold, unit trust, others. But on the day we turn 55, suddenly we are treated as imbeciles and the government has to lock our money away. The illogic is stunning.
The excuse that retirees would squander away their money even at the ripe old age of 55 is poor. Would retirees invest $330 million in an education firm in Brazil?
If retirees outlive their money, the problem is at the last stretch of their lives. It is so strange of the government to short circuit the problem to present by withholding the personal money of retirees. Why spend taxpayers money now instead of when the need arises? Moreover, we all know half of Singaporeans will not live until 85 and beyond. So the agony is exaggerated by 2 times. (see next point)
5. It is all about the reserves, isn't it?
It is not difficult to work out the amount GIC is managing, including an expected $100 billion spending. The "significant sums of unencumbered monies" will become peanuts. That's why retaining the encumbered monies (CPF) is so important.
Singapore likes to act like a small country with a big voice. China desisted letting its currency appreciates. Singapore lets the S$ appreciates from $1.93 to $1.25 over 10 years. Our forex losses piled up and our exports got hurt too.
The government also has a better deal. Temasek is performing much better than GIC because it has a higher quality portfolio, not a higher-risks one. Just look at the high-dividend paying TLCs like DBS, SIA, Singtel, Keppel, etc. Moreover, they are in S$.
Investing retirement money in foreign currencies is a fundamental breach of investment ethics by the government. We should lobby for an immediate switching to local assets or for the return of our money.
Now the stingy nanny is opening up its purse. But is spending $100 billion on new MRT lines and others going to be money well-spent?
An ageing population is only a problem if the country is poor. If the $100 billion is used to spend on the people instead of importing foreigners inordinately and then having to spend on infrastructure, we won't have a problem. Human beings are mortals and will die one day. The pool of oldies will eventually stabilise even if new ones are joining the ranks every year. In fact, it is the importation of adults that causes and perpetuates an ageing population.
6. Are we under-saving or over-saving?
Govt savings = taxes - spending + investment income
By reducing healthcare subsidies from 70% to 30%, the government is generating savings
By selling land/properties at high prices, the government is generating savings
By raising GST from 3% to 7%, the government is generating savings
By raising foreign workers levies, the government is generating savings
By locking away investment income, the government is saving up
By creating income inequality, the Marginal Propensity to Save has gone up.
By locking away our CPF, we have been forced to save too much.
By encouraging home-ownership, we have been forced to save too much.
By making us buy all kinds of compulsory insurances (longevity, healthcare, etc.), we have been forced to save too much.
Anyone could see that our woes are due to over-saving. How the hell did the experts come to the opposite conclusion that we are not saving/investing (S=I) enough or the returns are not high enough?
Last edited:
