• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Idea of different Minimum Sums for different groups being studied: Tan Chuan-Jin

streetcry

Alfrescian
Loyal
[h=2]Any change to the CPF system will take into account the income needs of Singaporeans in their retirement years. One area being looked at is whether it's possible to have different Minimum Sums for different groups, depending on their needs, said Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin.[/h]
cpf-building-today.jpg
The CPF Building at Robinson Road. (Photo: TODAY)







SINGAPORE: Any change to the CPF system will take into account the income needs of Singaporeans in their retirement years. One area being looked at is whether it's possible to have different Minimum Sums for different groups, depending on their needs.


Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin made these comments when asked about his thoughts on the review of the CPF system which is currently under way. But he also warned that providing more options would make the system more complicated.


Since November, the panel tasked with reviewing the CPF system has held several focus group discussions. One thing stood out - people value the CPF system. But there are differing views on how to make it better.


The Manpower Minister said the fundamental role of the CPF has not changed and that is to provide for one's financial adequacy during one's retirement years for healthcare and housing. The key is to establish how much flexibility to work into the system and whether more options can be provided.


A range of options is being considered. For example, a different Minimum Sum for different groups of people. The Minimum Sum is the amount one sets aside upon reaching age 55 to ensure some regular income upon retirement at 65. It now stands at $155,000. It will be adjusted to $161,000 in July 2015.


Currently, if a person is unable to set aside this full amount in cash, his property - bought with his CPF savings - will be automatically pledged, for up to half of his Minimum Sum.


Moving forward, how much Minimum Sum one sets aside may depend on the payout that person wants. Minister Tan said: "We should be focused more on the payouts. At the end of the day, it is: what is the level of payout that we want?


"If we are happy with X amount being streamed out on a monthly basis, then obviously if we feel that that's the amount that we need to provide for, whether our basic needs or enhanced needs. That amount will then obviously need to be tied to a certain amount that you need to accumulate because that's how it works. So we may be looking at a variety of options, depending on what you are looking at."


"Even today, under the present system, if you are able to accept a smaller payout, you do a property pledge and so on, you re-use the amount that you keep, then obviously the amount being streamed out is less. So I think we are looking at various options available and then tied to these options would be differing amounts that you would need to accumulate," added the minister.

Mr Tan said: "We are also looking at the possibility of extending the amount, because there are also a number of people who want to top up their CPF but could not because there are limits. Actually many also do realise that keeping monies in the CPF makes a fair degree of sense for them as well, both in terms of the savings and the interest that's being provided.


"So, (we are looking at) whether for some who are looking for enhanced payouts, would that be a possibility of putting in more monies into the CPF beyond what it is today? That may be an option that can be considered as well. But we look at it in totality."


Such a system will essentially mean different payout levels for different people. But ironically, the groups that need the higher payouts in their later years are the vulnerable ones. Mr Tan said they are also the ones who need a higher lump sum payout, when they hit 55. The problem is: the more you take out in your early years, the less you get later.


Mr Tan said: "For those who are alright, who have other savings and so on, perhaps it's not such a huge concern. But for those who are perhaps less provided for in different ways, it has a very real impact because it does mean that your payment, your payout, on a monthly basis is reduced. So that's not trivial.


"It's particularly the vulnerable groups that get affected most. I can understand those who have other forms of savings and so on who feel that perhaps we could be more liberal but it's perhaps the vulnerable groups that need it more and oftentimes, it's the vulnerable groups that feel that pressure to want to take out the cash for more immediate needs.


Another possibility being looked at is a stream of payouts that get higher as the years go by to combat the effects of inflation. The CPF Advisory Panel is expected to submit its preliminary recommendations to the government by February next year.
 

zhihau

Super Moderator
SuperMod
Asset
KNNBCCB! Return the full sum of the CPF to its rightful owner when they turn 55! Abolish the minimum sum scheme!
 

chootchiew

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Fuck you lah just return the money at 55 case close.The more nonsense you talk during your office hour, the more of our cpf $ go to your pocket understand.
 

winnipegjets

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Alot of peripheral talks to divert from the main issue ....CPF returns is insufficient to support retirement.

Imagine saving $10k a year for 30 years and you have only $450k at the end. Compare that to putting that money in the SPY (etf of S&P) where you will have $1.3 million. Government sapu $850k of your money!

And don't believe the bullshit that the returns on the CPF is risk free. It is no safer then the US equity market. If the US economy tanks, the world tanks and sinkapore suffers as well.
 

xingguy

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
All this talk are just band-aid and tweaks to a broken CPF system.

Vote PAP out in this coming GE, if you want answers to your CPF.

Source: likedatosocanmeh blog

20140515 How our CPF Ponzi scheme will end in tears for CPF members
May 15, 2014

The CPF was originally introduced by the British colonial authority in 1955 as a compulsory savings scheme to allow workers to save for retirement. Since the PAP took over the CPF after independence, there have been thousands of tweaks in order to satisfy PAP’s insatiable greed. The CPF system has been complicated to the extent that it now resembles more of a Ponzi scheme.

How a Ponzi scheme works

Wikipedia defines a Ponzi scheme as “a fraudulent investment operation where the …organisation (CPF board) pays returns to its investors (CPF members) from new capital (CPF new members’ funds) paid to the operators (GIC) by new investors (new CPF members).

Similar to a Ponzi scheme, CPF investments are shrouded in secrecy; the government has also repeatedly refused to disclose where CPF funds are invested and their market values.

GIC’s opacity creates suspicions of huge CPF losses

CPF funds are invested in GIC. As a government investment arm, GIC appears to be punting the share market and picking market bottoms during financial crises. One of the more well known bigger losses is its investment in UBS during the subprime crisis. GIC has been sitting on huge paper losses in the UBS investment. What GIC does is it selects from a pool of fund managers (tikam tikam) and provides them with OUR money for ‘investment’. Its board of directors comprises politicians and civil servants, hardly anyone with experience in fund management.

ubs32.jpg


GIC has been criticised by none other than MM Lee Kuan Yew who said that it had “bought too early into global banks such as Citigroup and UBS”.

How GIC invests with our CPF monies

What GIC essentially does is to invest come rain or shine ie market up or down doesn’t matter because it has a steady stream of funds coming in. For investments which are ‘underwater’, it will classify them as “long term investments”. Paper losses are not booked and nobody will know.

Mandating perpetually higher CPF MS creates even more suspicions

CPF members have become increasingly suspicious of the hidden government agenda in raising the Minimum Sum. The MS for the Ordinary and Medisave Account stands at $155,000 and $43,500 respectively. This is an amount where only 1 in 8 Singaporeans have.

For 2014, the combined MS for the OA and MA is $198,500. In 20 years time, the MS from today’s $198,500 will be $434,937 at a 4% inflation rate, $526,679 at 5% and $636,616 at 6%. Future value calculator

Since an increasing number of CPF members will not be able to meet the MS requirement, the government appears to have a hidden agenda.

Not just masking GIC losses but to prevent withdrawal tsunami by baby boomers and PRs leaving

cpf20by20age20group2020123.jpg


One reason to increase the MS drastically may be to mask GIC losses. Another would be to prevent the largest outflow in CPF history.

From the chart above, 34% or $78.2 billion of CPF funds belong to members aged between 45 and 55. Due to the high cost of living, an average of 10,000 PRs have given up their permanent residency since 2000, bringing their CPF monies home of course.

The PAP has to act to stem the mother of all CPF outflows or it will be catastrophic for GIC. GIC urgently needs a steady stream of capital in order to make a few killings in the stock market to make up for other investment losses. New investments will also provide a breather as total dividends will increase to supplement our budget surplus.

Younger Singaporeans must be wary, older ones played out by PAP and CPF policy

Conservatively using an inflation rate of only 4%, CPF members will be required to have a MS of $526,679 in 20 years time. After meeting our housing needs, only wealthy Singaporeans will be able to meet the MS requirement.

This confirms:

- Singapore to be the most expensive place to retire in the world.
- The PAP has abdicated its basic responsibility of taking care of our healthcare needs with its ever increasing Medisave Minimum Sum.
- The PAP is incompetent – instead of helping Singaporeans to retire comfortably, it is basically telling us to continue helping ourselves by working longer and accepting lower wages.​

CPF members must reject GIC’s crap

The MOF states that “GIC is a professional fund management organisation” and a “fairly conservative investor”. GIC invests CPF monies in stocks, private equity, real estate, bonds, etc in order to generate returns.

Although the MAS and Temasek publish the size of their managed funds, GIC does not. To defend GIC’s opacity, the MOF says the publication will “make it easier for markets to mount speculative attacks on the Singapore dollar during periods of vulnerability”. This is crap.

Question:
Since when was GIC tasked with the defence of the Singapore dollar?
No other country manages public funds in such an opaque manner. What is GIC hiding from CPF members?

MPs’ collective silence on CPF a troubling sign

Other issues like housing, education, public transportation, etc. may affect different segments of the population but CPF affects EVERYONE. It is expected of PAP MPs not to act in the interests of citizens in Parliament but why are opposition MPs also silent? Are CPF losses so huge that could foreign investors’ confidence will be affected by such a disclosure?

CPF not Ponzi scheme because previously all members were paid

When it comes to investing, history lovers should take note that “past performance is no guarantee of future results”. Ponzi schemes usually start off well and the problem is at the tail end where redemptions occur.

The reason why CPF was able to pay all its members in full upon reaching 55 was the increasing support of new members. Presently, the rate of increase in the number of CPF members and also the CPF amounts have declined. Changes in immigration policy will also have an effect.

The PAP is trying to prevent CPF withdrawals leading to a net reduction in GIC assets ie sell its investments in the open market to pay CPF members. From a paper loss, GIC’s losses will then be realised and reported. PAP must prevent such disclosures at all costs.

Ponzi schemes ultimately collapse because of redemption (withdrawal)

Bernard Madoff Ponzi scheme, the biggest financial fraud in US history, unraveled because of a $7 billion redemption. Without the redemption, Madoff would not have been caught. Redemptions are equivalent to withdrawals in CPF.

CPF faces a similar situation where the mother of all withdrawals (redemption) is at its doorstep. What makes it so different from the Madoff case is that the government is able to change the rules of the game at its whim by mandating more funds for GIC. The only way for for GIC to get caught with its pants down is to have all its books opened. With the PAP’s overwhelming presence in parliament, this is not likely to happen any time soon.

Summary

Our CPF system has morphed into a sort of Ponzi scheme. CPF members are most concerned by the total lack of transparency.
The government creates even more suspicions by mandating a perpetually higher CPF Minimum Sum. Again, the issue of transparency arises because there was no parliamentary debate. The issue of transparency features prominently in a Ponzi scheme.
The Ponzi CPF scheme will come to light with the mother of all withdrawals ie $78 billion is held by those aged between 45 and 55 in 2012. The PAP has attempted to prevent this at all costs.
Young ordinary citizens must know that at the rate of increase, the MS will be more than $500,000 in 20 years time. They will not be able to meet this ridiculous requirement.
When ALL MPs have ignored the CPF elephant in the room, their collective silence is a troubling sign. Is GIC too big to fail?
Increasing the population to bring in new CPF members to support the scheme has a limit.

In its current form, the CPF system is nothing but a Ponzi scheme designed to benefit the PAP and is severely detrimental to ordinary citizens’ interests. It can drag on for years but will ultimately collapse and end in tears for CPF members.

P S

“CPF members will be required to have a MS of $526,679..” – correct figure should be “$434,937″. “$526,679″ is for 5% inflation rate.
 

Sinkie

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Just a paltry pitiful 2 percent thereabout, when your CPF monies are used to earn these conniving bastards 15 to 18% through GIC and TH.

This is major diversion from the main issue and that main issue is suppressing time deposit rate to 1% or less all these years using MAS, just so to make the CPF's rate of 2% looks attractive and then use our CPF as a VERY CHEAP fund for GIC and TH to invest and then in-between, take away the bulk of the 16 to 18% rate of return and give back only 2% to the members. Now, who gave them this right to siphon off the rate of returns to line their own pockets?

On top of that, give all sorts of excuses to delay the full withdrawal of the CPF that was promised at age 55, before this was changed in1985 by a someone by the name of Howe Yoon Chong, but opposed by a Toh Chin Chai. That's why Toh Chin Chai died without getting much publicity and even the stupid press ST reported some hit and run accident 'purposely' and wrongfully credited to him.

Worse, the excuse that we're living longer till 85 is also a BIG FAT LIE, as the statistics published by the statistics board show that those born in the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's will only live till about 65 to 75 years old, on average. Only those born in 2010 till to-date will possibly live till 85. Hence, the premise of delaying the CPF annuity start is just a filthy scam, because it is based on a BIG FAT LIE and a manipulation of statistics. Statistics do not lie. These bastards did. Check my other thread on this.

Hence, increasing the retirement age till 65 and now 67 is directly and purposefully delaying the payout of the annuity scheme and muddling the waters regarding the mutually exclusive definitions of retirement age and full CPF withdrawal age, which was promised @ age 55.

I think based on the above, PAP has lost its moral position and henceforth, enough is enough. Without integrity, don't think it has any moral ground to preach to us what is good or bad for us. Just RETURN OUR CPF @ 55 IN FULL, AS PROMISED. Full Stop.

PAP is finished........TOTALLY.
 

Froggy

Alfrescian (InfP) + Mod
Moderator
Generous Asset
Nahbeh jeebye might as well come up with different number of votes one can cast during election.
 

eatshitndie

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Nahbeh jeebye might as well come up with different number of votes one can cast during election.

old fart came up with that idea decades ago. this will be more equitable if those who contribute more have more votes compared to losers. :wink:
 

TracyTan866

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
TCJ - Different Sums For Different Groups

PAP tries to lessen the anger of Singaporeans by proposing to return different CPF sums to different groups at different times. PAP is trying to confuse some Singaporeans

Why should Singaporeans allow the PAP to tell us how much we need at what time?

PAP must remember:

1. CPF is my money
2. I don't need PAP to tell me how much I need at age 55 years
3. I don't need PAP to tell me how much I should spend
4. I don't need PAP to tell me what I should spend my money on
5. I want PAP to return my CPF money when I am 55years
 

Confuseous

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Re: TCJ - Different Sums For Different Groups

Well, well, well.

So, they are now trying their usual piece meal solution to a major problem.

These guys are just reacting to the ground, make wild promises, and then change their minds after the elections.

Don't fall for it!
 

rotiprata

Alfrescian
Loyal
TCJ - Different Sums For Different Groups

u guys still remember the recent report from DBS on retirement sum ?
 

frenchbriefs

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
old fart came up with that idea decades ago. this will be more equitable if those who contribute more have more votes compared to losers. :wink:

that would be disastrous as we know the success of PAP's campaign hinges on the daft and stupid sinkies retards voting for them.
 

zeddy

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
They are still reluctant to give the full sum at the age of 55... So many twist and turn from the PAP when it comes to the CPF issues.. Sinkies must not be daft and be easily appeased by this latest promise by the PAP.. Have no doubt now that the GE will take place before 2016...
 

tonychat

Alfrescian (InfP)
Generous Asset
Re: TCJ - Different Sums For Different Groups

PAP tries to lessen the anger of Singaporeans by proposing to return different CPF sums to different groups at different times. PAP is trying to confuse some Singaporeans

Why should Singaporeans allow the PAP to tell us how much we need at what time?

PAP must remember:

1. CPF is my money
2. I don't need PAP to tell me how much I need at age 55 years
3. I don't need PAP to tell me how much I should spend
4. I don't need PAP to tell me what I should spend my money on
5. I want PAP to return my CPF money when I am 55years

Exactly.. who are they to tell us how much we need to take out..fuck them hell!!!
 

whoami

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
They are still reluctant to give the full sum at the age of 55... So many twist and turn from the PAP when it comes to the CPF issues.. Sinkies must not be daft and be easily appeased by this latest promise by the PAP.. Have no doubt now that the GE will take place before 2016...

If WP promise voters they will get their Cpf back if they vote for WP. I am sure it would be sweet victory for WP.:smile:
 
Top