Wondering if this move (SA earnings to go direct to RA if FRS not met) might have unintended impact.
Currently, OA and SA monies are liquid to someone who wants to work beyond 55.
Only for the CPF members who've met the Full Retirement Sum (or the Basic Retirement Sum with property pledge or charge).
Therefore, there is a strong draw to continue working esp if you value the liquidity that it gives you.
But if some amount of this is forced into RA, this might disincentivise some from working?
If you haven't met the FRS (or BRS) then SA (and potentially OA) dollars are destined for RA. It's just a question of when, not if.
Or they might prefer employment without CPF contributions but higher possible take-home.
Which would defeat the point of all these moves to ensure that people shore up their RA...
At or below the FRS/BRS there's no huge difference. Some RAs will get better funded sooner. That'll mean more interest stays in RA, and that'll mean slightly higher CPF LIFE payouts.
Above the FRS there's a difference: from early 2025 RA and MA will be the only ways to earn the higher interest rate. I think the government expects that more people will voluntarily put more money into their Retirement Accounts. The big Enhanced Retirement Sum (ERS) hike in early 2025 is a strong indicator. My household is planning to add funds to the one Retirement Account we've got so far (up to the new 2025 ERS early next year), so I have one whole data point.
I don't think the "work/stop work" incentives will be that strong either way. More than half of CPF members aren't really affected at all. The government points out that only about 8,400 members (including 1 in my house) won't be able to transfer all their SA dollars into their RAs (if they wish), and even the 8,400 will be able to transfer a lot (an extra amount in early 2025 equivalent to the 2025 BRS).