• 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.

Defamation Suit to get a Response - Disgraceful.

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Joined
Jul 16, 2008
Messages
25,134
Points
83
This came out on Sunday. Roy has been on this for so long. Did it take the Manpower Minister to only react after a defamation suit to get him to explain a great uncertainty that is within his Ministry's remit. He got time to sue Vincent W but no time to explain what is going on.

Now lets see if he was addressing the issue or avoiding the issue.



The Truth About Our CPF and the Minimum Sum
Home » CPF » Minimum Sum » The Truth About Our CPF and the Minimum Sum
25 May 2014

PART I – Our CPF System
CPF Helps Us to Retire
Money in your CPF account is your money
The Minimum Sum is increasing because we are living longer so we need to spread out our payouts
PART II - Misconceptions about the Minimum Sum
Is the Minimum Sum achievable?
Are you in trouble if you do not meet the Minimum Sum?
In summary
PART I – Our CPF System

“CPF is my money. Why can’t I use it as I please?”

“The CPF is a scam. It is how the Government cheats you of your money.”

“Government is raising the Minimum Sum to keep you from taking your money.”

We have been hearing some of this online. In many dialogues and conversations, I have asked if people actually read about what CPF is really about. Most admit that they don’t. But there are also those, especially the ones keen on financial planning, who put out thoughtful pieces to help Singaporeans understand how it helps.

Let me state that the CPF is put in place to help Singaporeans have peace of mind when it comes to their retirement years. With increasing longevity, it has become even more important to help Singaporeans sustain their retirement adequacy for longer. There are 3 main points I would make.

1) CPF helps us to retire.

2) CPF is your money. You are already using it! Everyone has received their CPF monies plus top-ups and interest.

3) The Minimum Sum is increasing because we are living longer so we need to spread out our payouts.

CPF Helps Us to Retire

We will all retire one day so we need to prepare for it. The CPF is how Singapore does it.

Many countries do the same through a pension system. They collect taxes or get citizens to contribute to a social security fund. This pooled monies is then paid out to citizens who reach a certain age. However, many of these systems are facing challenges, because those who are young are now paying for the old. As most countries age, there are less and less young people paying for more and more aged people. The status quo cannot hold. Either taxes will have to rise, or old people will get a lower and lower pay-out. The pension payout age is also being increased.

In Singapore, we have the CPF. Rather than pool all our monies together, every individual saves for his own retirement via his personal individual CPF account. We contribute monthly into the account. Our employers contribute too. The Government also contributes into the accounts for those who need more, through Workfare and other schemes such as Pioneer Generation Package. We then make sure this CPF account grows at a reasonable interest rate without risk. In fact, your CPF monies are backed by the full faith and credit of the Singapore Government – only one of a few countries in the world with a triple A credit rating from all of the world’s major credit rating agencies.

Money in your CPF account is your money

Unlike most other systems, our CPF does more than just give us a monthly pension. We use it to help own our homes and pay for healthcare. In countries where a significant proportion of retirees do not own their homes or are still servicing their mortgages, pension payments have to be used for these costs. As the vast majority of Singaporeans including lower income retirees own our homes, paid for out of our CPF, and have fully paid our loans, we do not need to use our CPF LIFE payouts to pay for rentals. Many of us are already using our CPF monies to fund expenses that would otherwise have come from our disposable income.

The Minimum Sum is increasing because we are living longer so we need to spread out our payouts.

In many other countries, pension monies are not drawn out in a lump sum, but paid out monthly. This helps retirees spread out the use of their retirement savings over their retirement years.

When the British introduced the CPF scheme in 1955, we could withdraw all our savings at 55. Do we remember what our retirement age was then? It was 55. What was the life expectancy in 1955? It was about 60. Hence, what you withdrew at age 55 would have to last you for just a few years.

Today, the retirement age is at 62 and we could be re-employed until 65. And life expectancy is at least 82 and rising fast. For those turning 65 years old today, 1 in 2 will live beyond 85, and 1 in 3 beyond 90. What would happen if we withdrew everything at age 55? Or even 65? Would we ourselves be able to manage our monies for two decades or more?



Source: MOM infographic

Unfortunately, most savers are unable to achieve good returns with low risk. Many have lost money because they chose the wrong products to invest in, or because of market downturns that occur in their retirement. Would we have peace of mind if we were subjected to the same uncertainties? What would happen if our monies ran out? Who would bail us out?

This is why the CPF Minimum Sum matters.

As we retire, we will need more money, because

1. We are living longer. In fact, we can probably expect to live 10 years longer than our parents did. Unless we intend to work and retire much later, we will spend more years in retirement.

2. Prices will increase over time. The same things will cost more as the years go by. Although prices of basic items have gone up by less in Singapore than in most other advanced countries, the fact is the cost of living will go up over time.

3. Our daily needs have increased. What we consider to be “basic” has changed over the years. The food we eat is of better quality, the medicine that we consume is more advanced, and technology that we now enjoy didn’t exist before. So our daily needs have increased. This is a good thing, because it means that our quality of life has increased.

Hence, the Minimum Sum has been increasing over time. When we turn 55, we set aside a Minimum Sum from our savings in the Ordinary and Special Accounts (OA/SA) to meet out retirement needs, and we can withdraw any remainder (see footnote).

In 2003, we wanted the Minimum Sum to be able to meet the expenditure needs of a lower-middle income retiree couple. This was why we decided in 2003 to bring the Minimum Sum from $80,000 then, to a target of $120,000 in 2003 dollars. The target was to be reached over a period of 10 years, so that by 2013, a lower-middle income retiree couple could have had their expenditure needs met.

Many have forgotten that this is what we decided to do many years ago and are surprised each year when the Minimum Sum is raised.

In fact, we pushed back the target by another two years to 2015 so as to make the increases more gradual because of higher inflation in recent years.

So remember: The current Minimum Sum for someone turning 55 from July 2014 is $155,000, after adjustment for inflation. This sum will provide about $1,200 per month, for life, through CPF LIFE. This is estimated to be what a lower-middle income retiree household requires to meet their basic daily needs. This is far more than the $230 per month that we would have received if the Minimum Sum had remained at the original $30,000, which was the Minimum Sum in 1987 when we first started the scheme.

PART II - Misconceptions about the Minimum Sum

When I read through some online discussions, I realised that there were a few misconceptions about what the Minimum Sum means. Many are unfamiliar with what is available on the CPF website or some of the clarifications on MOM Facebook and Factually. Encouragingly, some personal finance blogs have helpfully tried to clarify, such as DrWealth, cheerfulegg, DollarsandSense, and SGYoungInvestment.

Let me try to clarify a few main points again.

First, if you did not have sufficient savings to set aside the Minimum Sum at age 55, you do not need to top up the shortfall in cash. You also do not need to sell your property just so that you could meet the Minimum Sum!

Second, only half of the Minimum Sum must be maintained in cash. The savings above that can be used for housing needs. Any contributions into the Ordinary Account after age 55 can also still be used for housing.



Source: MOM infographic

Is the Minimum Sum achievable?

Yes it is achievable. Even as the Minimum Sum has increased in recent years, more and more Singaporeans have been able to attain the Minimum Sum. About half of active CPF members are able to now, compared to one third just five years earlier.



Source: CPF Annual Reports (2013's Annual Report to be published soon), CPF Trends Article Feb 2011

Note: Active members refer to members who have at least one CPF employment contribution paid for them for any of the four months preceding the members’ birth month at 55. The sum of a member’s cash balances and property pledge are used to measure MS attainment in recognition that the member’s property can be used to supplement his retirement income.

We expect even more CPF members to meet the Minimum Sum over time. In a study commissioned by MOM, two local academics, Dr. Chia Ngee Choon and Dr. Albert Tsui from NUS, estimated that about 70% – 80% of new entrants to the workforce would be able to meet the Minimum Sum for their cohort. This is a definite improvement but we should still aim to do better.

Are you in trouble if you do not meet the Minimum Sum?

A number of older Singaporeans are not able to meet the Minimum Sum because they were working when Singapore was still developing and wages were low. These vulnerable Singaporeans may need help if they do not have family support. We will help them. Indeed, we introduced the Pioneer Generation Package so as to help lighten the burden of their healthcare costs.

There are those who do not meet Minimum Sum because they did not work regularly. But many among these may have a spouse or family who are able to support them.

Furthermore, the majority of older Singaporeans own their homes. Many prefer to hold on to their homes and rely on their children for support in their retirement years if their own savings are inadequate. But there are several schemes to help them if they wish to get cash from their homes. Besides renting out rooms, which many do, they can move to smaller flats or make use of the Silver Housing Bonus and the Lease Buyback Scheme.

I know there are also low-income workers who need more help. This is why we introduced Workfare, which pays into the CPF accounts of lower-wage workers. And that is why we pay an extra interest of 1% for the first $60,000 of CPF savings of every Singaporean so that those with lower balances can grow their savings faster. We also raised the amount that employers must contribute to CPF recently, especially for older workers and lower-wage workers.

We are looking into other ways to further strengthen our support for those who might need more help.

In summary

I believe that our CPF is a good system and a fair one. It is also a more sustainable system than most other retirement schemes. Your CPF funds are absolutely safe.

Would we be better off if we dismantled the CPF Minimum Sum and left it completely to individuals to provide for their retirement themselves? It is tricky providing for many years of retirement. We believe it is prudent to set aside a portion of our monies to be managed via the CPF system so as to provide the basic needs of retiree households. Individuals continue to decide how they use the rest of their monies. And the truth is, CPF monies are already being drawn upon for a range of uses. Some have even argued that we should tighten this.

We will continually strengthen our CPF system to improve the assurance we can provide our seniors for their retirement, healthcare and housing needs.

###

Footnote: Those of us who have not met the Medisave Minimum Sum (MMS) from our Medisave savings will first need to top up our Medisave Account to the MMS. More info on this here.


Manpower Minister
Tan Chuan-Jin
 
It does not touch on the issues raised and therefore does not address anything. Mumbo jumbo at best.

No mention of
1) how CPF funds are invested
2) Why the low returns
3) role of Temasek and GIC
4) why the minimum sums keep increasing at an alarming rate
5) and most importantly why the withdrawal goalposts have been moved
 
It is a delight to debunked the bs from the PAP. Those days when their bs is taken as fact/truth are over.

Many countries do the same through a pension system. They collect taxes or get citizens to contribute to a social security fund. This pooled monies is then paid out to citizens who reach a certain age. However, many of these systems are facing challenges, because those who are young are now paying for the old. As most countries age, there are less and less young people paying for more and more aged people. The status quo cannot hold. Either taxes will have to rise, or old people will get a lower and lower pay-out. The pension payout age is also being increased.

As sinkapore has always adopt ideas that are viable and sustainable, why did it not look at the pension system that is doing an excellent job providing for the retirees? The CPF system is not superior to the pension plan.

Look at the Canadian Pension Plan for instance. For a 2.5 percent contribution, matched by employers, it provides retirees from the age of 60 a monthly pension equivalent to 30 percent of wages. And that amount is indexed to inflation. Sinkapore's CPF required a higher contribution, about 10 times more. For that huge contribution, you see your savings eroded by inflation as the returns is less than inflation.

The Canadian Pension Plan has more than enough to cover 75 years of payment based on the current payout. Why don't sinkapore learn from them?
 
He is talking thru his arse. There is no comparison.

It is a delight to debunked the bs from the PAP. Those days when their bs is taken as fact/truth are over.

As sinkapore has always adopt ideas that are viable and sustainable, why did it not look at the pension system that is doing an excellent job providing for the retirees? The CPF system is not superior to the pension plan.


The Canadian Pension Plan has more than enough to cover 75 years of payment based on the current payout. Why don't sinkapore learn from them?
 
Debunking the CPF bs continues.

In Singapore, we have the CPF. Rather than pool all our monies together, every individual saves for his own retirement via his personal individual CPF account. We contribute monthly into the account. Our employers contribute too. The Government also contributes into the accounts for those who need more, through Workfare and other schemes such as Pioneer Generation Package. We then make sure this CPF account grows at a reasonable interest rate without risk. In fact, your CPF monies are backed by the full faith and credit of the Singapore Government – only one of a few countries in the world with a triple A credit rating from all of the world’s major credit rating agencies.

If the government thinks each one saving and paying its own way is the best way, why not use the same approach to taxation? Personal income tax should be eliminated. Let sinkees pay for services that they want. That way, we don't need to spend $12 billion on defence and many billions on the home team and for cabinet.

Let's face it - the CPF is a scheme to provide cheap funds for the government AT THE EXPENSE of sinkees.

The government claims it makes sure that your retirement grows at a 'reasonable interest rate' That rate is less than the rate of inflation! How is that growth? That's losing money!!!!!

The government makes 20 percent return and returns you 2.5 percent and that is deemed reasonable.

Any government can guarantee your savings when it is making 20 percent using that money to pay you 1/10 of the returns. So, it is NO big deal about the government guarantee. Even a loan shark is willing to do that!

Are we being screwed by the government?
 
No Singaporean academic can write a report and still survive. Remember what Ng Eng Hen did when 2 academics wrote a report about jobs going to foreigners. Their supervisor the well known Prof Lim Chong Yah, who also happens to be the father in law to old man's son dived under the table and hid. Remember Drs Bilveer Singh, Mutalib, George Cherian and Christopher Lingle.


We expect even more CPF members to meet the Minimum Sum over time. In a study commissioned by MOM, two local academics, Dr. Chia Ngee Choon and Dr. Albert Tsui from NUS, estimated that about 70% – 80% of new entrants to the workforce would be able to meet the Minimum Sum for their cohort. This is a definite improvement but we should still aim to do better.
 
More PAP bs
Money in your CPF account is your money

Is it your money? You can't invest it elsewhere to get better returns. With each year, the amount you can take out on retirement is reduced.
How can it be your money when the government hangs on to it with a tight leash and pay you interest much lower than inflation?????
 
Debunking the CPF bs continues.



If the government thinks each one saving and paying its own way is the best way, why not use the same approach to taxation? Personal income tax should be eliminated. Let sinkees pay for services that they want. That way, we don't need to spend $12 billion on defence and many billions on the home team and for cabinet.

Let's face it - the CPF is a scheme to provide cheap funds for the government AT THE EXPENSE of sinkees.

The government claims it makes sure that your retirement grows at a 'reasonable interest rate' That rate is less than the rate of inflation! How is that growth? That's losing money!!!!!

The government makes 20 percent return and returns you 2.5 percent and that is deemed reasonable.

Any government can guarantee your savings when it is making 20 percent using that money to pay you 1/10 of the returns. So, it is NO big deal about the government guarantee. Even a loan shark is willing to do that!

Are we being screwed by the government?

Yalor....KNN, Chao Ku Chiang Chao Chee bye.....liddat also have......he better go fuck spiders lah.
 
In their website they mentioned risk-free interest rate, the SPH reporter also used the term risk-free interest rate. Even prostitute and ex-SPH Editor Bertha Henson used the term risk-free interest rate in her article in TR E today. Now suddenly after the intense scrutiny from the public, it has changed from spin term of risk-free to "reasonable". Reasonable my arse.

The government claims it makes sure that your retirement grows at a 'reasonable interest rate' That rate is less than the rate of inflation! How is that growth? That's losing money!!!!!
 
Unlike most other systems, our CPF does more than just give us a monthly pension. We use it to help own our homes and pay for healthcare. In countries where a significant proportion of retirees do not own their homes or are still servicing their mortgages, pension payments have to be used for these costs. As the vast majority of Singaporeans including lower income retirees own our homes, paid for out of our CPF, and have fully paid our loans, we do not need to use our CPF LIFE payouts to pay for rentals. Many of us are already using our CPF monies to fund expenses that would otherwise have come from our disposable income

The only reason why the CPF has been accepted by sinkees is that the PAP government has muddled it up. There is NO reason for a retirement savings plan to be used for other purposes. And the PAP government blames sinkees for not saving enough for retirement?
Sinkees think the CPF is wonderful since they don't need to pay out of pocket when purchasing a flat. When they retire, they then realize that they have so little savings for retirement.

Transparency and accountability requires that a fund be specific. Let the CPF be solely for retirement. For saving on health care, let that be another fund. Likewise for housing. Then, we could measure how successful is each of the programme in fulfilling its purpose. Of course, we all know the answer. We can't improve on something when we don't measure it.

It is total bs to say that many retirees in developed countries don't own their homes. In fact, most have their homes paid off before retiring. And they also are able to put money aside for retirement besides relying on the public pension.

Paying out of pocket for mortgage is better as it will make sinkees aware of the true cost of housing. The government doesn't want sinkees to see that reality as sinkees would rebel as a result. The most expensive social housing in the world is in sinkapore. $400k for a bare bone flat. After that, one has to spend a minimum of $50k to make it liveable.
 
This came out on Sunday. Roy has been on this for so long. Did it take the Manpower Minister to only react after a defamation suit to get him to explain a great uncertainty that is within his Ministry's remit. He got time to sue Vincent W but no time to explain what is going on.

cut him some slack, bro
as a father of some young children, he would need some time with them :):):)
 
In many other countries, pension monies are not drawn out in a lump sum, but paid out monthly. This helps retirees spread out the use of their retirement savings over their retirement years.

First he lampoons the pension system, yet he adopts the mode of payment. You can't have it both ways. The pension system is a shared pool of resources to pay out to every member of the plan; it is designed that way to ensure that the funds will always have the means to pay the retirees.

The CPF funds is your money. There is NO reason for the government to hold it from you and decide how it wants to return it to you.
 
First he lampoons the pension system, yet he adopts the mode of payment. You can't have it both ways. The pension system is a shared pool of resources to pay out to every member of the plan; it is designed that way to ensure that the funds will always have the means to pay the retirees.

isn't CPF Life made into a common pool of funds? if it isn't, give me my god damn bloody option to opt out!
 
Come, come, there is no reason for such petulance and the use of harsh words. He has already explained that it is your money the interest rate is reasonable.

isn't CPF Life made into a common pool of funds? if it isn't, give me my god damn bloody option to opt out!
 
Now full minister TCJ trying to show he's doing his job. Bet you he didnt write it at all--arrow assistant.
 
The PAP government cannot afford to give you back your savings ...so it cooks up the annuities scheme to solve a problem that it created - that sinkees don't have enough saved for retirement.
Before you lap to their hair-brain idea, read below about annuities. The conclusion is that the PAP is ripping sinkees off on the CPF in every way it can.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidma...romises-of-annuities-and-annuity-calculators/

The only real guarantee of an annuity is a diminishing lifestyle because of inflation.
 
He has already explained that it is your money the interest rate is reasonable.

they also said HDB very affordable! BTO @ Bedok area, 5 room flat @ SGD$510,000.00. like peanuts hor? their reasonable interests rates as high as peanuts?
 
I believe that our CPF is a good system and a fair one. It is also a more sustainable system than most other retirement schemes. Your CPF funds are absolutely safe.

It is NOT a good system because you pay so much into it and get a negative return. Because of the CPF, you are paying for overpriced social housing.

There are pension plans that are sustainable and provide much better returns, the Canadian Pension Plan is one instance.

Of course your CPF funds is safe when the value of it is eroding by the year! The fund manager is making 20 percent returns and paying you only 2.5 percent when inflation is at 4-5 percent.
 
Would we be better off if we dismantled the CPF Minimum Sum and left it completely to individuals to provide for their retirement themselves?

Sinkees will be better off if the CPF is turned into a pension fund like the Canadian Pension Plan. Sinkees will have more take-home income and enjoy better retirement income.

The CPF will be an entity that is independently run and their investment decision will not be dictated by the government.

If a portfolio of ETFs can generate 7 percent return in the long haul, there is NO reason for a huge sovereign fund to do any worse. In fact, it will do much better ...double digit returns will be the average return. Thus, it should not have any problem paying for 30 percent retirement income.
 
Back
Top