You're ranting incoherently now, but I'll respond to the one slight glimmer of lucidity....
you dont practice what you preach. on one hand you ask people to puff up their cpf. on the other you say you have life annuity and will go for brs.
No, I did not say that. I said I would
consider BRS-level CPF LIFE, if eligible...and while enjoying an additional, separate, lifetime annuity in excess of ERS-level CPF LIFE.
if you practice what you preach, you would have gone for ers.
I do practice what I preach. I already have a lifetime annuity (joint/survivor, too) in the pipeline higher than ERS-level CPF LIFE. My general recommendation -- and the requirement in practically all developed countries and in many developing countries -- is not zero longevity insurance. "Zero is the wrong answer."
Nobody is financially invincible, not even you. (The closest to financial invincibles are high quality sovereigns.)
My recommendation has never been specific to CPF LIFE. If you and your spouse have adequate or better lifetime guaranteed annuities that happen not to be CPF LIFE, that's fine, that works. I've always said so, and I say it again. It just so happens that CPF LIFE is the world's best (value for money, highest quality) Singapore dollar denominated lifetime annuity. It's also world class if you set aside the currency qualifier. So if that's one of the options (and/or requirements) you have, great!
if gates is going to receive 3k/mth and brs gives you only 800/mth, should not you up it such that you can get close to his 3k? you are more powerful than gates?
Bill Gates, Bernie Madoff, and I are very
similar in that respect, as I've carefully explained many times before.
I'll point out again how ridiculous your argument is. OK, so you're required to participate in CPF LIFE, because you're a citizen or permanent resident of Singapore with employment and/or self-employment income in Singapore, and you hate CPF LIFE. We got it -- you're not a fan. But the fact remains that there is no choice. You must, as you would also be required to participate in practically all other developed countries and in many developing countries. Given that you're required to participate -- no choice -- you then want to make the argument that you're not going to transfer even one dollar to a non-working spouse? Even when the financial outcome would be unquestionably more favorable for the household, assuming your spouse is in at least reasonably good health? That spouse qualifies for bonus interest! There's also the option for tax relief.
The only person(s) you're hurting if you take that approach is your spouse. Possibly yourself as well since you need to come up with that much more funding to replace the lost bonus interest. You'd be failing to make the most out of the "rotten deal" (or whatever your viewpoint is), compulsory financial program (CPF LIFE) for your household.
OK, if you really don't care much at all about your spouse, or if your spouse is in poor health, then I could perhaps understand why you'd keep CPF LIFE annuity payments asymmetric (all for you, none for your spouse). But if you care even slightly about your spouse, then you're just hurting at least your spouse if you don't optimize the (awful, rotten, terrible, dastardly, I hate it, whatever) CPF LIFE.
My recommendation is that you (and everyone) make the most of whatever circumstances you face, for the benefit of you and your loved ones, and consistent with the law and high moral behavior.
By the way, Bill Gates drives a car, and Bill Gates is required, by law (in Washington State where he lives), to have at least mandatory minimum third party liability insurance. Do you want to make the argument that currently rich automobile drivers in Singapore should not be required to have auto insurance? It's the same argument. They're invincible, right? Should the government also allow currently rich Singaporeans to avoid paying MediShield Life premiums? Want to make that argument, too?