CPF Easy Info Thread. :)

[reddevil0728]

are you very sure how your kid is going to behave next time. even if your kid is good when they are young, they could be influence by their spouse.

to me. i will just play it safe. i make sure i keep more than enough for myself. i will just pass it to them when i really do not need it any more.

well I’m not saying I’m sure or not sure. Just saying it’s really depends on upbringing. So we will only know on hindsight.

But I think if the thought is one must play safe, then one really have to consider if one would want kids or should have kids.

 

[dork32]

well I’m not saying I’m sure or not sure. Just saying it’s really depends on upbringing. So we will only know on hindsight.

But I think if the thought is one must play safe, then one really have to consider if one would want kids or should have kids.

it is in our genes that we want to have kids. if you have genes that do not want to have kids, your genes will die with you.

it is in our genes that we want the best for our kids. if you have genes that do not care about your kids, you kids will die before you do. and when you finally die, your genes die with you.

it is not in our genes to take care of our parents. if you have genes that will dump your parents, your parents will die with this gene. but your genes will continue into your kids. when they grow up, they dump you. this genes continue to propagate in their kids.

 

[dork32]

I choose Standard because highest payout from the start, don't need think too much.

if you do not believe in giving anything to your kids, standard is good. This what you have mentioned.

 

[reddevil0728]

it is in our genes that we want to have kids. if you have genes that do not want to have kids, your genes will die with you.

it is in our genes that we want the best for our kids. if you have genes that do not care about your kids, you kids will die before you do. and when you finally die, your genes die with you.

it is not in our genes to take care of our parents. if you have genes that will dump your parents, your parents will die with this gene. but your genes will continue into your kids. when they grow up, they dump you. this genes continue to propagate in their kids.

That can be agreed on, on an opinion point of view. but on a scientific front, not sure if there is empirical evidence to support that.

In any case as mentioned above...

everybody has their own thought. So it’s ok to think whatever they want.

But just don’t impose one’s thought on the other lor. Then everything will be fine.

 

[badsector]

2021 BHS $63,000

 

[a4973]

Hello all, I'm > 55. Won't be having employment for 2021, intend to VC full $37740 by end Jan 21. My shield plan deduct from my MA in Aug each year and my eldershield also deduct I think in June. Is there a preferred strategy to perform the VC? Ie top up MA to 2021 BHS then VC the balance ($37740 - amount top up to MA), or VC all $37740 at one go? Also anyway I can subsequently fill up the gap left by shield and eldershield premium deductions in the later part of the year? Many thanks for your advice.

 

[highsulphur]

2021 BHS $63,000

5% increase. That seem like more than usual

 

[reddevil0728]

5% increase. That seem like more than usual

Maybe cause of covid

 

[SBC]

2021 new BHS cap announced already?

Suspect will be 63k.

I was spot on 2 weeks ago.

 

[celtosaxon]

if you do not believe in giving anything to your kids, standard is good. This what you have mentioned.

What about a surviving spouse? If anything happens to you, the income from your CPFL is gone.

Kids are young, they can still work and survive on their own... not so easy for a surviving spouse.

Spouse is major reason I prefer Basic, having the additional funds from the bequest will help offset the loss in income that is being depended on. Although the bequest becomes less over time, the older we get, the less will be needed to survive to the end.

 

[doratch]

I was spot on 2 weeks ago.

Yup.

I estimated 62k to 63k.

I really din expect it to be 63k coz of the economy.

 

[doratch]

Hello all, I'm > 55. Won't be having employment for 2021, intend to VC full $37740 by end Jan 21. My shield plan deduct from my MA in Aug each year and my eldershield also deduct I think in June. Is there a preferred strategy to perform the VC? Ie top up MA to 2021 BHS then VC the balance ($37740 - amount top up to MA), or VC all $37740 at one go? Also anyway I can subsequently fill up the gap left by shield and eldershield premium deductions in the later part of the year? Many thanks for your advice.

Does topping up of MA constitute as VC ($37,740)?

I suggest to top up MA first because there is tax relief.

Then you can top up as VC to 3 accounts for the remaining sum as there is no tax relief for this.

 

[Kaypohji]

Covid or not
All that will increase will increase

5% increase. That seem like more than usual

 

[dork32]

What about a surviving spouse? If anything happens to you, the income from your CPFL is gone.

Kids are young, they can still work and survive on their own... not so easy for a surviving spouse.

Spouse is major reason I prefer Basic, having the additional funds from the bequest will help offset the loss in income that is being depended on. Although the bequest becomes less over time, the older we get, the less will be needed to survive to the end.

i dont think bequest is going to help spouse much especially you die quite old. if you want something for spouse, much better you distribute the cpf into 2 accounts, hers and yours

 

[dork32]

That can be agreed on, on an opinion point of view. but on a scientific front, not sure if there is empirical evidence to support that.

yes there are evidence. it is just that you are not a science person. that is why though the evidence is staring in your face and you do not notice it.

all babies are so cute. you know why? so that parents will love their kids more and give more to them so that the babies can survive. evolution has shaped babies to cute.

ah pek and ah mah dont have the looks to match babies. it is ok that they look bad. it is ok that they are neglected and die. their survival does not contribute to the continuation of the species.in fact valuable resources will have to be used to keep them alive. this resource could have let the babies to survive better.

this type of topics are a taboo. no one dares to speak about it.

i myself is going to be a ah pek soon. but i am going look really ugly soon. but these are facts that i have to accept.

 

[reddevil0728]

yes there are evidence. it is just that you are not a science person. that is why though the evidence is staring in your face and you do not notice it.

all babies are so cute. you know why? so that parents will love their kids more and give more to them so that the babies can survive. evolution has shaped babies to cute.

ah pek and ah mah dont have the looks to match babies. it is ok that they look bad. it is ok that they are neglected and die. their survival does not contribute to the continuation of the species.in fact valuable resources will have to be used to keep them alive. this resource could have let the babies to survive better.

this type of topics are a taboo. no one dares to speak about it.

i myself is going to be a ah pek soon. but i am going look really ugly soon. but these are facts that i have to accept.

Did I missed seeing peer reviewed research papers that you posted on what you are claiming???

 

[kehyi4]

BHS over the years:

• 2015 - 48,500
• 2016 - 49,800 +2.7%
• 2017 - 52,000 +4.4%
• 2018 - 54,500 +4.8%
• 2019 - 57,200 +5.0%
• 2020 - 60,000 +4.9%
• 2021 - 63,000 +5.0%

 

[celtosaxon]

i dont think bequest is going to help spouse much especially you die quite old. if you want something for spouse, much better you distribute the cpf into 2 accounts, hers and yours

Even if you spread CPF evenly over 2 accounts, what happens after one spouse is gone? The combined lifelong income drops by half... how about household expenses?

In my mind, the longer the surviving spouse has to live, the greater the bequest needed. This is why the bequest seems more relevant to a surviving spouse than to any other beneficiary.

 

[BBCWatcher]

Even if you spread CPF evenly over 2 accounts, what happens after one spouse is gone? The combined lifelong income drops by half... how about household expenses?

In my mind, the longer the surviving spouse has to live, the greater the bequest needed. This is why the bequest seems more relevant to a surviving spouse than to any other beneficiary.

U.S. Social Security often partially mitigates that problem. No, this option isn’t commonly available to readers of this forum, but you’re lucky.

I agree there’s strong merit in leaving a bequest (household assets, more generally — “bequest” is a loaded term here) to a surviving spouse/partner. I just don’t think CPF LIFE gets the job done, even with the Basic Plan. I think the better play is to use CPF LIFE to defend residual household wealth, not to deliver it (which it often won’t).

Another possible approach is to fund CPF LIFE to double the lifestyle support that one surviving spouse needs (Escalating Plan assumed). So yes, while both spouses are alive it’s “too much,” but so what? It’s still a good deal. However, even ERS level CPF LIFE might not be enough for one spouse.

 

[celtosaxon]

U.S. Social Security often partially mitigates that problem. No, this option isn’t commonly available to readers of this forum, but you’re lucky.

I agree there’s strong merit in leaving a bequest (household assets, more generally — “bequest” is a loaded term here) to a surviving spouse/partner. I just don’t think CPF LIFE gets the job done, even with the Basic Plan. I think the better play is to use CPF LIFE to defend residual household wealth, not to deliver it (which it often won’t).

Another possible approach is to fund CPF LIFE to double the lifestyle support that one surviving spouse needs (Escalating Plan assumed). So yes, while both spouses are alive it’s “too much,” but so what? It’s still a good deal. However, even ERS level CPF LIFE might not be enough for one spouse.

I agree that my situation is a little unique, but the same 50% drop in guaranteed income applies in my case. Simple example -

Both spouses alive:

SS (spouse 1) = $4k
SS (spouse 2) = $2k
CPFL (spouse 2) = $2k

Spouse 1 survives (50% drop)

SS (spouse 1) = $4k
SS (spouse 2) = $0
CPFL (spouse 2) = $0

Spouse 2 survives (25% drop)

SS (spouse 2) = $4k
SS (spouse nil) = $0
CPFL (spouse 2) = $2k

Using a 4% SWR, the portfolio replacement amount is $600k per $2k income lost, that is a large gap to fill in order to keep the same income level in the event that only one spouse survives.