Recently the Government announced the need to buy annuity . This was a heated topic. Read the news and the feedback given. The feedback is "fierce"!! Think about it!
NEWS taken out from THE STRAITS TIMES on the 24 sept 07
| Sep 24, 2007 |  | |
| CPF changes needed to tackle future problems | ||
| Government has duty to do the right thing now, and measures will benefit many, especially the poor | ||
| By Peh Shing Huei | ||
| PRIME MINISTER Lee Hsien Loong yesterday took pains to explain the Government's reforms to the Central Provident Fund (CPF) scheme, saying it had a duty to act to address problems that would arise in the future. 'This is something which if we did not do, it will not disturb us now, it will not 'Nobody will blame us until we are 35 years from now, when the problem is here, then people will say, 'What kind of Government did we have 35 years ago, never took care of us today'. 'And I think it is our responsibility to make sure that we do that now.' He was referring to the debate on the controversial new longevity insurance that requires those aged below 50 to buy an annuity that they will start collecting at 85, some 35 years later. The Government, he said, could have put off introducing the reforms, as the impact of not doing so would not be felt for many years to come. But, as a responsible Government, it chose to act early and think long term.
'I think it will benefit many Singaporeans, especially the low-income ones. 'It is not something which is going to make a difference overnight because we are talking about when we grow old, and we are talking about 10, 15, 20 years from now,' he said. The CPF changes, first announced by Mr Lee at the National Day Rally last month, cover three aspects. These are: An extra one percentage point interest for the first $60,000 in the accounts, a delay in the draw-down age of the Minimum Sum from 62 to 65 and the compulsory longevity insurance. Parliament spent three days debating the proposals last week, and yesterday's session was a follow-up to address concerns from grassroots leaders. The 21/2-hour dialogue covered a range of topics, from doubts over whether people really lived long lives to housing and medical needs of the old. Nearly half of the 22 questions were on the longevity insurance issue. Throughout, Mr Lee and his team of ministers sought to explain complex issues in simple terms, relating amusing anecdotes of people they had met and tossing in earthy phrases to make their points. They also released a cartoon DVD to help get the message across. Asked what the point of longevity insurance and having so much money at age 85 was, when one might be bo-geh, or toothless in Hokkien, Mr Lee replied, to laughter: 'Bo-geh, you cannot enjoy. But bo-geh, bo-lui (no money) is worse.' Turning to the issue of CPF interest rates, Mr Lee said the Government should be very careful in taking up calls that had been made for higher returns because that would also mean higher risks with members' money. Noting that some had hit out at the Government for using their CPF funds as 'cheap money' for its investments, Mr Lee said: 'Some people say...Government wants cheap money to go and make a profit. We do not have to make cheap money. This is not that kind of government.' Mr Lee added that the CPF was just one piece in an entire package catering to Singaporeans' retirement needs. Second Finance Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam, who was among five other ministers present, fleshed out the details. Responding to a participant who asked for more goodies, he said that 'at least one-third' of a lower-income Singaporean's retirement savings already came from the Government. Most of this funding went into Housing Board flats, which, he added, appreciated over time. 'So, this is a Government that actually has been helping people build up savings for retirement,' he said. In addition, there are the Workfare income supplement, ComCare public assistance fund and education subsidies like the Post-Secondary Education Account, which will deposit $400 for all Singaporeans aged seven to 20 from next year, helping them with further studies. Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen said that the proof of it was in the money the Government spent on Budget surpluses and goods and services tax offset packages since 2001 - $11.7 billion. Admiralty constituency's youth executive committee chairman Jordan Ang, 29, said after the session: 'The picture is clearer now and makes it easier to explain to residents.' | ||
FEEDBACKS
  Today, 07:35 AM It would be easier for the people to buy the proposal if the govt could spell out in details exactly what kind of 'problems' it is expecting. In the case of monetary issue, it would be useful that the projections be made public.  |
| (#3)   | |
| | |
| Today, 11:14 AM This longevity insurance is day light robbery condoned by the government. At 50 the assured under the law puts say $50,000 into the longevity insurance. Payment will not be effected until the assured reaches 85. The amount of interest earn from this $50,000 for 35 years is substantial working on compound interest. Yet the amount to be paid out is a nominal sum of say $400 which in 35 years time the purchasing power could have dropped by at least 50%. Nothing much could then be done with the residual sum. The other deceiving point is how much longer can one live after reaching 85? On the other hand, if the assured dies earlier say at 65 the $50,000 hard earned money is gone rather than return to the family members. Is this equitable? Why is this point not emphatically made known to the general public? Another deception by the goverment? The government is not only making us, the citizens, pay and pay (PAP)it is also always "pien ah peh" (deceiving the elderly uncle - PAP). The PAP government has been planning alot of things they think are good for the citizens. This time round it is far from being good. It is day light robbery. |
| (#4) | |
| | |
| Today, 12:14 PM No, longevity insurance is daylight robbery *BY* the government. The assured will be unlikely to need the $400 payout for long after 85. So as neellow has counted, our substantial hard earned life savings will be gone. To where, only the government knows. |
| (#5) | |
| | |
| Today, 12:41 PM How about using our CPF money to invest in some cash cow investments such as the 4D counters & the Integrated Resorts which are guaranteed failure free. |
| (#6) | |
| | |
| Today, 12:49 PM <> Eh but why r the gahmen using our CPF MONEY to address this "PROBLEMS"? I can'T relate this solution to this "problem", why using our MONEY??????????? In english one will just say: MY FUCKING PROBLEM? I WORK, I PAY TAX, NOW I HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF THOSE WHO LIVE BEYOND 85 FOR THE GAHMEN, WHAT KIND OF A BULLSHIT IS THIS!!! |
| (#7) | |
| | |
| Today, 12:59 PM "Mr Tharman said that the CPF system should be managed so that it could be sustained for decades. 'Make sure it can be self-sustaining and the only way it can be self-sustaining is that we don't use the CPF to either subsidise someone else or we don't put subsidies into the CPF scheme, one group against another, one group subsidising another group,' he said at the dialogue with grassroots leaders. " "we don't use the CPF to either subsidise someone else" - Huh? Not practising what he's preaching? So what's with the annuities going to someone else after one's death? |
| (#8) | |
| | |
| Today, 01:55 PM it is getting harder and harder to get back our CPF monies. every few years, the rules keep changing, and in time to come, your monies is no longer "your monies", it has become part of Singapore Inc. |
| (#9) | |
| | |
| Today, 02:07 PM Tell Tharman be plain about his language. Don't beat about the bush. Answer to the point. What happens to the annuity when the assured dies prematurely? Likewise if assured dies within say 5 years after 85 is it right for anybody other than the deceased's estate to have a claim to the annuity. $50,000 for 35 years at compound interest is alot of money. If investment savvy, $50,000 after 35 years could easily grow to $5 if not $50million. Surely Tharman knows more than simple ABC to deliver a simple language explanation. Any concealment is deception. |
| (#10) | |
| | |
| Today, 06:14 PM As usual talk and talk becuase the policy is a "con" job. Attempts after attempts to deprive us from our own CPF. After a few years, the CPF policy keep changing and we will have to continue working because our CPF money had becomes the Government money. It is easy to collect the money from us but impossible to return the money back to us. |
| The fear I have most is that the government will try to disguise the compulsory annuity thing as a choice to the citizens. In the first place, noboday thinks its a problem. It is always been the responsibility of the family to look after the aged. The self sufficient approach is always being preach by the government and yet now they talk about pooling of money. This completely violate that principle. I am afraid based recent onslaught of articles (most if not all are for this compulsory annuity) they will come out with something that appears to be a choice. There will be claims that people want the annuity but some want a choice to decide if the money goes back to the family instead of going to a pool. You have a choice to buy a rider. Please all ministers, this is not a choice and please do not attempt to paint it like it is a choice. You will have crossed the line of all trust I have in the government if you do not allow the citizen to decide if they want to buy the annuity or not. All the crap about pooling is a must for economy of scale to get the needed benefit must never over-right what is essentially the citizen right to their own money. If the government crosses this line, the trust will never be able to be regained. No matter what the government does in the future. The basic situation is that the government does not listen and willing to wash their hands at the expense of the people and is basically a hypocrite in their self reliance principle. So, please stop all these nonsense now. There must be more important things to focus on than this. Think about it, these >85 yr old build up the country. We can easily extend help to ensure that the children look after them. This would be acceptable - even if its harsh. But to lock up their money and if they die early, it goes to others is too much. It basically reduce their opportunity to live the lives they wish to and yet, if they die too early, they lose all the money contributed. |
| (#12) | |
| | |
| Today, 08:27 PM If this rule comes in place, a lot of talents will leave Singapore, especially those who do not have families to tie them down. Getting the annuities is fine but why wait till 85 before u can cash in. The average longevity especially for males is only 70 now and there is no indication that that this is going to increase. Why don't the government look into the gender issue as well? The females can only cash in later??? |
| (#13) | |
| | |
| Today, 09:01 PM For all its economic success, Spore is a sorry case when it comes to personal rights. In any other democratic country you would see protests in the streets instead of 'ghost' protests in a virtual world like this. In terms of trampling on people's rights, this annuity plan takes the cake. Reading about what Mr Tharman says about the plan and that it is not being used to subsidy anyone, I cant help but laugh and wonder alound where did we get this clown and pay him $1mil a year. |
No comments:
Post a Comment