Quantcast
Channel: The Real Singapore - Opinions
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 5115

If MOM is correct about CPF, why do we need FTs, growing population?

$
0
0

One message we always get from the govt and the constructive, nation-building media is that an aging population and the refusal of married S’poreans to do NS when having sex means we need FTs to grow the population so that S’pore can finance the needs of an aging population.

But another message is that in our CPF system, we finance our personal retirement needs (see yesterdays ad in ST),

Unlike the ang mohs who have a pay-as-you-go system. The Manpower Blog from MOM describes it thus:

 ...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 fewer and fewer young people paying for more and more aged people …

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.

(Emphasis is mine)

So my question is why do we need to worry about an aging population? MOM says that we oldies don’t depend on younger S’poreans to pay for our pensions? It’s our money that is funding ourselves.

So why need population 6.9m by 2030? Or is it now 10m? Juz excuse to import FTs by the A380 cattle-class?

But then MOM also says CPF monies is S’poreans money, even when govt tells us how we can spend it: sounds like

“War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.” .

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

My take

And then there is this rubbish

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? 

Well there are many other solutions other than forcing Minimum Sum and CPF Life down our throats at age 55. Ask the SDP about one possible solution. and the ang mohs too have ideas. Related post on ang moh view supporting PAP’s stance  

 

Cynical Investor

*The writer blogs at http://atans1.wordpress.com/

 

Tags: 

Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 5115

Trending Articles