• 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.

The Hard truth is CPF is based on a big fat lie! Here's why...

Sinkie

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
The minimum sum is deliberately increased and withheld for 7 to 10 years, so you've more money to lose in an insurance annuity plan called CPF Life.

From my discovery of the statistics on life expectancy, most of us will never live to 65 years old. But you already signed up for a useless CPF Life annuity plan that kicks in at age 62, or 65 or 67, depending on an arbitrary age figure shafted down your throat, which has no co-relation to actual life span of most of us.

Yes, it's difficult to talk about death and life-span, but the fact is clear. CPF has been using data that are not applicable to us, because it uses the life expectancy of those born in 2013 is 82.5 years (both sexes ave).



Now, c'mon, surely we're not born in 2013, or are we saying they're treating us like 3 year old?


Give me a break...what a pack of lies.....as evidence tell me many of people I know who are dying now are 65 years old and younger.

Hence, this below statistics (assuming it is not massaged) used to increase the withdrawal age because of the lie that we're living till age 85 now, is applicable only for those born in 2013 and beyond, so it is irrelevant. It is a complete lie!! We don't live so long. The baby boomers do not live so long.

KNN...Just return us our CPF money at age 55 and please scrap the CPF Life useless nonsense and the minimum sum charade. Don't use a big fat lie to withhold our money and force us to sign up for CPF Life, which most of us will never reap its return.

Here is the fact from the Statistics website: www.singstat.gov.sg

http://www.singstat.gov.sg/publications/publications_and_papers/births_and_deaths/lifetable08-13.pdf

B49qiZ7.png
 
Last edited:

Confuseous

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Worse, the govt behaves as though they got out of bed a few months ago, and then suddenly realised that there will be a lot of old folks in the year 2030.

We pay millions for those clowns who are too busy checking their CPF accounts!
 

Sinkie

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Worse, the govt behaves as though they got out of bed a few months ago, and then suddenly realised that there will be a lot of old folks in the year 2030.

We pay millions for those clowns who are too busy checking their CPF accounts!

Look at the chart.....are you born in 2003? The life expectancy of you will be 79.1
Surely you're not born in 2003, or you'll be only 11 years old now in 2014.

So, if you're born in 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, which is what most will be born in that have issues with the CPF withdrawal age keep delaying and minimum sum keeps increasing, the life expectancy has to be much lower, like 60 to 70 years, at most....if you intrapolate the data.....and healthcare, nutrition and life wellness are not that great in those baby boomers' time.

What a big fat lie CPF has been using to sell these CPF changes to us......the sole purpose is to delay returning the CPF to us at age 55 and then using the CPF annuity plan to 'disappear' whatever is left in our CPF, just like MH370 disappearance.....OMG!!!
 

xingguy

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
PAP Should Stop CPF Wayang, Just Return OUR CPF

Source: likedatosocanmeh Blog

20141115 PAP should stop CPF wayang, just return OUR CPF
November 15, 2014 by phillip ang

CPF members are being treated to another PAP ‘wayang’ with the setting up of the CPF Advisory Panel to ‘listen’ to our feedback.

The CPFAP comprises PAP-affiliated members such as NTUC’s Sylvia Choo, Braddell Heights CCC Chairman Ng Cher Yan, Taman Jurong CCC Vice-Chairman Muhammad Faizal and a member of MAS Board of Directors Tan Chorh Chuan. The other 9 members are not average income earners. The PAP has already decided on the topics to be discussed, never mind the transparency which is sorely lacking nor members’ real needs.

The CPFAP is merely another PAP propaganda to impress upon the public that the government is listening when it is actually maintaining the CPF status quo. Some ‘good news’ may coincide with the election.

Singaporeans should not participate in another meaningless feedback exercise.

The issues which CPF members would like addressed are:

1. The flawed CPF MS scheme which does not take into account our retirement needs. It must either be scrapped or revised an opt-in scheme.
2. The withdrawal age - to be reinstated to 55 years or an age through consensus, not one dictated by PAP. There are obvious reasons for returning OUR money at 55 instead of 65.
3. CPF monies to be managed separately from our country’s reserves.
4. Transparency – disclosure of all CPF investments ie similar to the disclosure of other pension funds such as Norway’s. Even neighbouring Malaysia’s EPF ** is sufficiently transparent to put the PAP to shame.

Instead, of addressing these issues, the CPFAP only wants to address the following:

1. Minimum Sum (MS) – how to adjust beyond 2015 for future retirees.
2. Lump sum withdrawals at age 65 years – how much should CPF members be able to withdraw and under what conditions.
3. CPF payouts – how could CPF payouts be adjusted to address cost of living increases over time.
4. Alternative investments and annuities – how to provide more flexibility for CPF members who are prepared to take on more risks.

The PAP has already decided to keep the CPF features that are discriminatory which most CPF members do not want.

PAP should not continue to ride roughshod over our interests because it is merely a political party which has already overstayed its welcome. Should it continue to dictate to us the terms of our CPF withdrawal, it will be seen as unfit to govern. The only solution should be obvious.

Although the CPF issue has affected hundreds of thousands of citizens, the PAP has never taken this seriously. Recall 2 years ago there was not a whisper on the CPF issue during PAP’s National CONversation, not ours. Would ordinary citizens be happy if our hard-earned money was legally ‘confiscated’, to be kept for a god-knows-when future rainy day until we die while we worry about putting food on the table today?

PAP MP Hri Kumar had his own CPF CONversation in July to ‘discuss’ CPF matters. It turned out to be a blunder after a video of a 76 year old ex teacher begging for her CPF to be returned went viral. Kumar should have also known he was not in a position to conduct a CPF forum because, like ordinary Singaporeans, he did not know where GIC invested our CPF monies!

Does the PAP really want to listen and help CPF members retire comfortably? The answer is ‘no’. It is only interested in ‘wayang’.

According to the 2013 CPF statistics (Annex I) CPF members (active) in the 50 to 55 age group:
- There are about 70,000 members with $150,000 or less in their CPF. (Since almost everyone uses CPF for housing, this would mean they are likely to have close to nothing in their CPF)
- 142,525 members have $150,000 and above. (After deducting the amount used for housing and Medisave, the majority would be unlikely to meet the current OA MS of $155,000)

Including inactive members such as women who have left the workforce to raise a family, the majority of CPF members between 50 and 55 age group are not able to meet the OA MS.

If PAP had really wanted to help retirees, why does the government increase the MS to insane levels, money which the majority of CPF members do not have in their accounts?

An increasing number of CPF members now fear our CPF savings in GIC have been lost in bad investments. The issue of transparency needs to be urgently addressed because there appears to be something very wrong when our government continuously channel hundreds of billions into GIC through legislation but is afraid to state the exact amount managed by GIC.

In 2007, CPF monies managed by GIC was $128 billion (page 111); by June this year, CPF balance has increased by $136 billion to $264 billion. Why did the PAP channel a staggering $136 billion into GIC within 7 years? .

In 2000, CPF monies managed by GIC was only $60 billion (page 97). 14 years later, the amount has increased by more than 400% to $264 billion. What is PAP’s real motive for channeling more than $200 billion into GIC?

With the number of CPF members constantly increasing and the Population White Paper rammed through parliament to increase our population to 6.9 million, does this not resemble a Ponzi scheme?

Transparency on our CPF investments in GIC has been an issue for more than 3 decades. Why does the PAP continue to hide information which CPF members deserve to know? Why will the CPFAP not be discussing the issue of transparency?

Conclusion

By appointing PAP-affiliated members to the CPFAP, the PAP is clearly not sincere to resolve our CPF issues. It is just another PR exercise/propaganda aka wayang.

CPF members deserve to know where our funds are invested. But when the government insists on continued opacity, this has raised concerns on the solvency of GIC which manages CPF monies.

Postponing the lump sum withdrawal to 65 is not acceptable. CPF members will also not accept a partial lump sum payout at 65. The PAP is not doing us any favour because it is OUR money.

Policies are not cast in stone. The PAP has lost its moral authority to govern when it legislated an increasing amount of our retirement savings for GIC’s investments which are subjected to very high risks. CPF members demand the PAP government revamp the flawed CPF policy. Our CPF must be returned without conditions attached.

**
page 4 and 5 – detailed EPF members’ profile whereas CPF disclosure is selective
page 6 – information on their staff strength which CPF does not have
page 7 – information on the top 30 equity investment listed on Bursa Malaysia, CPF none
page 8 – detailed information on withdrawal under different schemes over a 4-year period, CPF only 1 year with much less information

Check out CPF statistics here and you will be asking this question – why doesn’t the CPF Board disclose statistics similar to those of EPF?


End Of Article​


10645005_859431850756470_6399387610619202797_n.jpg
10392290_782374121795577_5707022507004548692_n.jpg

1959482_742425675790422_1430967333_n.jpg
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
Re: PAP Should Stop CPF Wayang, Just Return OUR CPF

The withdrawal age for CPF has never been changed. It remains at 55.
 

johnny333

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Re: PAP Should Stop CPF Wayang, Just Return OUR CPF

The message is clear, if you want to get back your CPF you have to vote out the PAP. If the PAP loses control of parliament, the opposition can wrest control of Temasek from the Lee family. They can also start looking at all the skeletons that the PAP has.

I have my doubts about how much is left in the CPF.
 

xingguy

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Re: PAP Should Stop CPF Wayang, Just Return OUR CPF

The withdrawal age for CPF has never been changed. It remains at 55.

Boss,

Half truth is more lethal than outright lies.

At age 55, CPF members are allowed to withdraw their CPF funds, but must keep a "minimum sum" in their retirement account.

We want the government to honor its promise of returning to us the full amount and not the minimum sum bullshit.

TCCBreached_zps88e8feac.jpg


TCCAbstain_zpsfb6b65e9.jpg
 

AhMeng

Alfrescian (Inf- Comp)
Asset
Re: PAP Should Stop CPF Wayang, Just Return OUR CPF

The message is clear, if you want to get back your CPF you have to vote out the PAP. If the PAP loses control of parliament, the opposition can wrest control of Temasek from the Lee family. They can also start looking at all the skeletons that the PAP has.

I have my doubts about how much is left in the CPF.

This I agree. PAP must become Opposition so that we have a chance to see our CPF.
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
Re: PAP Should Stop CPF Wayang, Just Return OUR CPF

This I agree. PAP must become Opposition so that we have a chance to see our CPF.

I see my CPF every time my statement arrives and it certainly makes me feel wealthy.
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
Re: PAP Should Stop CPF Wayang, Just Return OUR CPF

Boss,

Half truth is more lethal than outright lies.

At age 55, CPF members are allowed to withdraw their CPF funds, but must keep a "minimum sum" in their retirement account.

We want the government to honor its promise of returning to us the full amount and not the minimum sum bullshit.


The lie that is being spread is that CPF members are not allowed to withdraw their funds at 55. Nothing can be further from the truth. The vast majority of your funds can be withdrawn at 55. All you have to do is leave a token amount. If you pledge your property, that token amount is reduced by half.

It's a sensible and well thought out policy that is designed to protect vulnerable members of society from squandering all their savings. It does not affect anyone who is prudent in managing their finances.
 

laksaboy

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Re: PAP Should Stop CPF Wayang, Just Return OUR CPF

What is the PAP govt good for other than having sessions of 'advisory panel' and 'steering committee' and 'committee of inquiry'? :rolleyes:

Looking busy and talking smack... but in the end nothing tangible gets done. :rolleyes:
 

kiwibird7

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: PAP Should Stop CPF Wayang, Just Return OUR CPF

The lie that is being spread is that CPF members are not allowed to withdraw their funds at 55. Nothing can be further from the truth. The vast majority of your funds can be withdrawn at 55. All you have to do is leave a token amount. If you pledge your property, that token amount is reduced by half.

It's a sensible and well thought out policy that is designed to protect vulnerable members of society from squandering all their savings. It does not affect anyone who is prudent in managing their finances.

It is a break in the original contract of FULL LUMP SUM withdrawal at age 55. All the "humane" reasons given are but crap excuses! Let's see Sam's reaction the next time he tries to withdraw his term deposit from a bank and it retains a minimum sum, giving all sorts of crap reasons like safe guarding his investments from robbers and gold digger mistresses.

Just call the PAP's bluff and offer signing a non liability undertaking of not having any govt welfare if one squanders the full CPF, better one squanders one's own money with full satisfaction than let Ho Ching or the GIC squander it away.

PAP govt welfare is a myth, all those destitutes in void decks, collecting cardboxes, tin cans have no CPF. What help is given them from the PAP GOVT now?

The so called govt guarantee is nothing but the tax payer put on the risk taking line if the CPF is bankrupted. None of the cabinet ministers or PM are liable for the CPF CASH losses. The state or rather all SG tax payer bears the risks.
 
Last edited:

xingguy

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Re: PAP Should Stop CPF Wayang, Just Return OUR CPF

The lie that is being spread is that CPF members are not allowed to withdraw their funds at 55. Nothing can be further from the truth. The vast majority of your funds can be withdrawn at 55. All you have to do is leave a token amount. If you pledge your property, that token amount is reduced by half.

It's a sensible and well thought out policy that is designed to protect vulnerable members of society from squandering all their savings. It does not affect anyone who is prudent in managing their finances.

If I owe you $6K and then I pay back only $5k. Can I start telling people that I have pay you back?

At PAP government's whim and fancy, this "token amount" can be increase and withdrawal age can be extended .
Bottomline is that you will not get to touch the money.

There are many of us who needs this money for our children's education (we don't get free scholarship like the foreigners) and other genuine needs. Anyway it is our money to begin with.

TCCDisneyLand_zps679ae606.png


TCCTunnelVision_zpsc22d178e.png
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
Re: PAP Should Stop CPF Wayang, Just Return OUR CPF

If I owe you $6K and then I pay back only $5k. Can I start telling people that I have pay you back?

If you owe me $1 million and you pay back $850,000, I wouldn't kick up too much of a fuss provided you pay me better interest than the banks do on the balance that you owe and you promise to pay it back gradually.
 

Belgarath

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: PAP Should Stop CPF Wayang, Just Return OUR CPF

If you owe me $1 million and you pay back $850,000, I wouldn't kick up too much of a fuss provided you pay me better interest than the banks do on the balance that you owe and you promise to pay it back gradually.


If you owe someone $1 million but pay back only $850,000 that is called a partial default, you twit.
 

shittypore

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: PAP Should Stop CPF Wayang, Just Return OUR CPF

If I owe you $6K and then I pay back only $5k. Can I start telling people that I have pay you back?

If this is at Geylang, definitely a beer bottle on his head to wake him up to reality.
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
Re: PAP Should Stop CPF Wayang, Just Return OUR CPF

If you owe someone $1 million but pay back only $850,000 that is called a partial default, you twit.

Not if interest is being paid on the outstanding amount.
 

Leongsam

High Order Twit / Low SES subject
Admin
Asset
Re: PAP Should Stop CPF Wayang, Just Return OUR CPF

If I owe you $6K and then I pay back only $5k. Can I start telling people that I have pay you back?

If this is at Geylang, definitely a beer bottle on his head to wake him up to reality.

The government has never claimed that they are paying you back 100%. They have already clearly stated that they are holding back a minimum sum for your own good and I happen to agree with this policy.
 

virus

Alfrescian
Loyal
Re: PAP Should Stop CPF Wayang, Just Return OUR CPF

The government has never claimed that they are paying you back 100%. They have already clearly stated that they are holding back a minimum sum for your own good and I happen to agree with this policy.

this sounds like the victim happened to run into me when i was holding a knife facing him. i did not stab him.... he just happened to die at the sight of the knife, nevermind there was blood stains on my hands and shirt.
 
Top