I only wrote that voluntary contributions sometimes can exceed the CPF Annual Limit.
Every. Word. Has. Meaning.
For those under the scheme, it's every time, not sometimes. Those not that fortunate, never.
No VC cannot exceed. Where you get that info?
From CPF. Sometimes voluntary contributions can exceed the CPF Annual Limit. As notable examples:
1. Special Account and Retirement Account top-ups are not subject to the CPF Annual Limit.
These are top-ups and not voluntary contribution. Voluntary contribution must be allocated to all 3 accounts, namely OA, SA and MA or directed to MA only. TU has it own limit and VC has cpf annual limit.
2. Voluntary employer contributions to Medisave under the Additional Medisave Contribution Scheme are not subject to the CPF Annual Limit. (They're not subject to the Basic Healthcare Sum limit either.)
To the board, this is not viewed as VC but a scheme offered for employer to make monetary contribution to MA (subject to the scheme's limit).
3. CPF Form MHC-TRF voluntary fund transfers into Medisave are not subject to the CPF Annual Limit.
This is not VC, but transfer from giver to recipient with no inflow of fund to the CPF's coffer. Why need to add the word 'voluntary' when it never appeared in the FAQ?
4. Voluntary contributions to a nominated member's CPF accounts under the Enhanced Nomination Scheme, upon another member's death, are not subject to the CPF Annual Limit.
Still, this is also not VC but merely a transmission of fund by a deceased.
you trying to be deliberately provocative? It's annoying
From CPF, VC has a special meaning of its own. Same as top-up. The two is not interchangeable. Example, to the Board, you can't make VC to SA/RA. That's top up and not VC according to CPF because VC
must go into 3 accounts or MA only.
TU and VC must result in increasing one's CPF account/(s) balance. Otherwise? TU has its own FRS/ERS limit and CPF Annual Limit refers to only mandatory and voluntary contribution, not transfer etc.
We should avoid using TU or VC loosely as that would confuse readers to use them without knowing the defined meaning or intention of CPF, like categorising transfer, TU and VC as having similar meaning or effect?
Deliberately provocative or annoying or both?
