My apologies for misreading. Yes you meant REITS issued bonds.
And apparently it's my fault for derailing the topic. I'll take that fault too.
Maybe you may say I'm a blind supporter, but do read why the minimum sum has been accelerated in the recent years. At the current minimum sum, you'll get roughly $1.5k per month. Is that sufficient for monthly expenses (including rental, because that's the full minimum sum)?
If it's barely, then imagine not raising the minimum sum to this amount and then letting citizens complain yet again that the monthly payout being miserable, because frankly, the sum would be low to begin with.
But of course, who's allowed to lock up our money right? It's our money and no one should touch it. Like how the state should not interfere with our retirement needs and not render any assistance when needed too.
It's not a perfect system and I'm not sure what will make it so. Perhaps you've some suggestions to them?
Ok I'll zip it because I'm derailing this thread again. Let's agree to disagree before I'm called a pappies dog or something similar. Apologies if i misread any other comments again. I'm blur and don't know what I'm rambling actually.
$1.5k might not be enough 20 years down the road. The govt is trying to absolve all duties for supporting the elderly upon retirement when one reaches old age. But this is like saying everyone cant handle their own $$ and needs the govt intervention.
$161k might not be enough, that I dont deny, but there are ways to make the $161k than to solely rely on CPF route. For this instance, I am agreeable that $161k is ok to be locked as min. sum. However, why is the age factor increasing as well? Honestly, based on statistics many people will live above 80, but how about those that dont? Even if there are many living past 80, whats the percentage of the population are there? Cant the govt give handouts for this specific group of people?
I myself, dont think that my suggestion that I bring forth here will make any differences, since Govt will listen to only their army of scholars and not peasants like me.
Anyway, imo, the CPF should have some flexibility, lets say someone is very ill and require the CPF for an operation he should be able to have full assess to his CPF. There should have some parameters in place that allow the use of CPF monies for extreme emergency cases. Next, if govt is not willing to fund the retirement via their own pocket, why not let Insurance companies do the job.
People should have the option to whether park their money in CPF or Insurance Companies or Banks. We should allow whoever who can guarantee higher returns to be holding our money. From my understanding, we are unable to use our CPF even if there is a better product out there giving a better return.
The CPF should be able to use for other things as well and not just limited to House and Education for children. Anyway it makes no sense that we cant use our CPF to pay back our parents' CPF Education loan to us.
I believe many people out there would have other suggestions.
As I am on HP, it is quite hard to formulate my thoughts right now as well, basically i just vomiting everything that comes to my mind without serious thoughts.
We are kinda digressing from the main topic. But why did your questions become the centre of the topic rather than what TS has intended to be is because you were thinking in line of how CPF benefits one and it should form the centre of a retirement plan without thinking of other investment route that can be used by liquid cash.
Anyway come to think of it, for people who earn $5k for 20 years (assuming no increase in salary), his/her OA and SA would contribute at least $161k (have not factor in interest). Hence the question as to whether we still need to put extra money into CPF is the crux. Which leads back to the question of this thread.
Since the salary will be able to give you the min. sum, why do one still have to put extra cash in CPF and not use the cash for more better investment or other opportunity?
Anyway as for TS question (i am assuming liquid cash), i am still in line with using CPF for house and Cash to keep. Why? Reason being, if I really need money I can still use the money that I have saved in the years to fund my emergency needs. Whereas if I locked it up in CPF, I can kiss it "goodbye" for a good 30-40 years.
Of course different people will have different style. I believe every style got their own merits. No one way is a true winning formula. It all depends on many factors and how different people see things. End of day, as long as one is able to meet its retirement needs is all that matters.