[Article] CPF rated highly by overseas experts

[reddevil0728]

https://www.straitstimes.com/business/invest/cpf-rated-highly-by-overseas-experts

But experts believe that allowing any withdrawal of CPF at 55 is just too early, considering that the average longevity of Singaporeans is above 80.

 

[item2sell]

“Experts”

Lol. Expected to trap your CPF to infinity and beyond

 

[fr33d0m]

Anyone who has the background of retirement/annuity knows the good service CPF provides. Only Singaporean despises CPF.

 

[reddevil0728]

Anyone who has the background of retirement/annuity knows the good service CPF provides. Only Singaporean despises CPF.

Agreed. A pension system isn't unique to Singapore. Yes, CPF got its flaws, (hence it is only rated B) and definitely can be improved, but it is necessary.

 

[Kaypohji]

Yup. Cpf is good.

I think can postpone withdrawal age to 70. Start payout of cpf life at 75/80.
Right now every 1 in 3 live past 90.
I think in another decade or two, it will be every 2 in 3 live past 90.
And their life span may exceed 120...

Anyway retirement age is 67 now? So actually nobody should need money before age 67 and they should continue to work until retirement age. So withdrawal age starts after that just right and I think government mention before they intend to increase retirement age.

 

[item2sell]

Yup. Cpf is good.

I think can postpone withdrawal age to 70. Start payout of cpf life at 80.
Right now every 1 in 3 live past 90.
I think in another decade or two, it will be every 2 in 3 live past 90.
And their life span may exceed 120...

Anyway retirement age is 67 now? So actually nobody should need money before age 67 and they should continue to work until retirement age. So withdrawal age starts after that just right

Start at 90 even better.
Obviously you don’t know the value of time

 

[reddevil0728]

Yup. Cpf is good.

I think can postpone withdrawal age to 70. Start payout of cpf life at 80.
Right now every 1 in 3 live past 90.
I think in another decade or two, it will be every 2 in 3 live past 90.
And their life span may exceed 120...

Anyway retirement age is 67 now? So actually nobody should need money before age 67 and they should continue to work until retirement age. So withdrawal age starts after that just right

I don't think they will postpone, probably they will put a cap on how much one can withdraw at 55, then another amount at 60, another amount at 65. etc etc.

I think starting payout at 80 can only come in tandem with an increase in retirement age.

67 is re-employment age. retirement age is still 62. so companies still can ask you to leave after 62 but they need to pay you some form of compensation

 

[Kaypohji]

My post is illustrating something that can turn from good to not good

Cpf is good but implementation....

EDIT: I think pap’s line of thoughts should be similar to what I wrote...

So I propose smth as written in my another post above

Start at 90 even better.
Obviously you don’t know the value of time

 

[Kaypohji]

I think government should work hand in hand for both retirement age and cpf withdrawal and cpf life payout start age. Not just life expectancy

If possible, they should let singaporeans earn more from their bto. if everyone including those not good in investment, can get windfall from bto. they actually no need to depend on cpf life so much. Or even cpf as a whole.

They got a lump sum that can last for pretty long or even use that sum of money to generate even more money. The more they won’t need to touch their cpf at all.

So I feel they should take housing cost as a factor too. Other than retirement age and life expectancy

I don't think they will postpone, probably they will put a cap on how much one can withdraw at 55, then another amount at 60, another amount at 65. etc etc.

I think starting payout at 80 can only come in tandem with an increase in retirement age.

67 is re-employment age. retirement age is still 62. so companies still can ask you to leave after 62 but they need to pay you some form of compensation

 

[BBCWatcher]

The full report is available here.

The following 6 countries' pension systems received higher scores, in this order: Netherlands, Denmark, Australia, Finland, Sweden, and Norway. Singapore ranked ahead of these countries, in this order: New Zealand, Canada, Chile, Ireland, Switzerland, Germany, United Kingdom, Hong Kong SAR, USA, Malaysia, and France.

Don't get too hung up on this ranking, though. It depends a lot on the weighting selected for the scoring. Just to pick a random example, if you're a married couple (same or opposite sex) then Singapore's system ought to rank rather poorly since it doesn't explicitly offer any spousal benefits.

 

[reddevil0728]

My post is illustrating something that can turn from good to not good

Cpf is good but implementation....

Agreed. it is way too complicated even for those who might be more familiar with such stuff.

I think government should work hand in hand for both retirement age and cpf withdrawal and cpf life payout start age. Not just life expectancy

If possible, they should let singaporeans earn more from their bto. if everyone including those not good in investment, can get windfall from bto. they actually no need to depend on cpf life so much. Or even cpf as a whole.

They got a lump sum that can last for pretty long or even use that sum of money to generate even more money. The more they won’t need to touch their cpf at all.

So I feel they should take housing cost as a factor too. Other than retirement age and life expectancy

How do they let Singaporeans "earn more" from their BTO? Ain't it a supply and demand thing after BTO?

 

[Kaypohji]

Bto prices are set by government.
While resales prices are supposedly set by the market.

So bto price lower by government, when u sell to resales market, ur profit margin is higher. If they don’t sell also can, their cost is lower so the cpf used to pay for house also lesser (keeping more in cpf)

To me it’s win win situation. Government can keep most of the Singapore happy with delaying the withdrawal age etc. more money can be retain in the cpf system.
Singaporeans got additional source of income to tap other than cpf.

Agreed. it is way too complicated even for those who might be more familiar with such stuff.



How do they let Singaporeans "earn more" from their BTO? Ain't it a supply and demand thing after BTO?

 

[reddevil0728]

Bto prices are set by government.
While resales prices are supposedly set by the market.

So bto price lower by government, when u sell to resales market, ur profit margin is higher

I never go study how they price BTO. Not sure if the government is making a profit off BTO? If they aren't I don't think it is right to use taxpayers money to subsides the cost of BTO even more

 

[Kaypohji]

They are.
Bto construction cost is pretty low... u don’t need half a million to build one pigeon hole....

They calculate land cost as part of the cost now whereas last time they don’t. They now peg bto prices to resales prices. Whereas last time they don’t too... so the huge increase in price.

So the land cost in Tanjong pagar cost more than cck for example. Cause the land area more prime.

Ultimately land is free. Government is not using tax payers money to pay for anything even they don’t calculate land cost

I never go study how they price BTO. Not sure if the government is making a profit off BTO? If they aren't I don't think it is right to use taxpayers money to subsides the cost of BTO even more

 

[reddevil0728]

They are.
Bto construction cost is pretty low... u don’t need half a million to build one pigeon hole....

They calculate land cost as part of the cost now whereas last time they don’t. They now peg bto prices to resales prices. Whereas last time they don’t too... so the huge increase in price.

So the land cost in Tanjong pagar cost more than cck for example. Cause the land area more prime.

Ultimately land is free. Government is not using tax payers money to pay for anything even they don’t calculate land cost

I don't fully agree with you on that. Even though there is no actual accounting cost to the land, but there is economic cost, i.e. opportunity cost. If they use it to build residential units, they end up can't sell the prime land for other purposes.

Land is after all part of national reserve, so it has to be used prudently as all Singaporeans should stand to gain from our national reserve, and not just those people who purchase units at those prime areas. So in a way, it is only fair to factor in land cost, though maybe applying a "discount" is equitable.

It's like the future residential units at Keppel, those who are lucky to get it would have windfall at the expense of other Singaporeans or those who don't get it, if they don't factor in land cost. So that's why they said they are doing something about it.

 

[Kaypohji]

Not saying all houses must price the same. I’m saying all can be priced lower..

Nobody is saying a prime location bto will cost the same as cck for example.

When I say they can choose not to take land cost into consideration but doesn’t mean they have to sell it all across the board.

But yes they can never be price the same since it is not worth the same. But at the same time, they can choose to price it lower. So everyone can earn if they wish everyone to not touch their cpf at all for as long as possible.

Or that bto doesn’t cost the citizens much so they won’t spend much of their cpf/cash on bto

The government can’t possible first keep wages stagnant second have a bigger share in profits from bto third expect ppl not to depend on cpf too much when most likely a lot of ppl will have cpf as their main portfolio when they retire.

Disclaimer pls don’t do personal attack saying I must be poor to depend on cpf for my retirement. I am referring to whole sg. I think majority of ppl when planning retirement fund to take into consideration of cpf, which is it’s true purpose isn’t it?

Hdb is another topic don’t wanna digress much...

Even though there is no actual accounting cost to the land, but there is economic cost, i.e. opportunity cost. If they use it to build residential units, they end up can't sell the prime land for other purposes.

Land is after all part of national reserve, so it has to be used prudently as all Singaporeans should stand to gain from our national reserve, and not just those people who purchase units at those prime areas. So in a way, it is only fair to factor in land cost, though maybe applying a "discount" is equitable.

It's like the future residential units at Keppel, those who are lucky to get it would have windfall at the expense of other Singaporeans or those who don't get it, if they don't factor in land cost. So that's why they said they are doing something about it.

 

[ocs_woodlands]

the reason why cpf remains a B and not an A is the low interest rates it pays.

I will gladly leave all my money in cpf under these 3 conditions.

1) CPF SA pays 5% for all balances
2) no limit on OA to SA transfers.
3) current withdrawal rules stays.

Thank you

 

[Kaypohji]

Replied to you on another thread.

Actually 4% ain’t that bad. But would be good if cpf oa can have more.

Number 2 and 3 is totally agree!!! Number 3 very important !!!

the reason why cpf remains a B and not an A is the low interest rates it pays.

I will gladly leave all my money in cpf under these 3 conditions.

1) CPF SA pays 5% for all balances
2) no limit on OA to SA transfers.
3) current withdrawal rules stays.

Thank you

 

[reddevil0728]

Not saying all houses must price the same. I’m saying all can be priced lower..

Nobody is saying a prime location bto will cost the same as cck for example.

When I say they can choose not to take land cost into consideration but doesn’t mean they have to sell it all across the board.

But yes they can never be price the same since it is not worth the same. But at the same time, they can choose to price it lower. So everyone can earn if they wish everyone to not touch their cpf at all for as long as possible.

Or that bto doesn’t cost the citizens much so they won’t spend much of their cpf/cash on bto

The government can’t possible first keep wages stagnant second have a bigger share in profits from bto third expect ppl not to depend on cpf too much when most likely a lot of ppl will have cpf as their main portfolio when they retire.

Disclaimer pls don’t do personal attack saying I must be poor to depend on cpf for my retirement. I am referring to whole sg. I think majority of ppl when planning retirement fund to take into consideration of cpf, which is it’s true purpose isn’t it?

Hdb is another topic don’t wanna digress much...

I don't think the government can "keep wage stagnant", because at the end of the day it is based on market forces. But yes, a lot of companies will take the cue from NWC, so yes, the government can't call for companies to adopt the recommendations from NWC and yet at same time keep the prices of BTO the same.

More definitely can be done, and I don't disagree with you that they can charge less for land cost. They need to re-evaluate whether what they charge now makes sense given the current climax.

Not personal attacking, I am just trying to explain stuff. So no offence.

Yes HDB is another topic, but my point being is, the intention of a pension system is good for everyone, those who knows the value of it and those who don't know the value of it. but the implementation of CPF can definitely be better.

 

[reddevil0728]

Replied to you on another thread.

Actually 4% ain’t that bad. But would be good if cpf oa can have more.

Number 2 and 3 is totally agree!!! Number 3 very important !!!

Think they are trying to entice people to put more in SA than OA, hence they need to make the contrast big enough, without increasing the interest of SA.