CPF Life sucks

[sunzoner]

...

cpf life ensures that you have a monthly payout that is suppose to last 20 years after official retirement age.

You can get that with the minimum sum. No need for CPF life.

What the CPF life does, is to take away your money, put it into a pool, use it for investment, and provide no guarantee of an payout.

Compare it to the minimum sum, which take away your money, put it into a pool, use it for investment, and provide a guaranteed payout.

Now, which scheme is better?

unless you're damn good in generating passive income per month then this scheme probably is useless to you.

You mean "If", Do you?

There is no need for a passive income for retirement. Different countries allow their citizens a retirement through different ways. In some countries, a pension is paid. Some countries allow the citizens to save tax-free money for investment. Much like the CPF. But in their case, the investment can be done by the citizens.

Our country proposes that the citizens:

1. save 37% of their salary.
2. Put in into an account with the government.
3. Drain it off using public housing.
4. Then recommend the citizens to either sell it off to the next greater fool, or hope that there is an ever increasing number of foreigners to rent the property out to, in order to exchange for a monthly "passive" income.
5. Failing which, hope that the meager amount remaining in the government account can hit a predefined target to exchange for an uncertain payout.

Now, how about:

1. lowering the cost of the public housing
2. so that more money remains in the account
3. and let the people use the money in the account when they retire

Isnt the above an easier to understand scheme?

 

[orwell76]

You can get that with the minimum sum. No need for CPF life.

What the CPF life does, is to take away your money, put it into a pool, use it for investment, and provide no guarantee of an payout.

Compare it to the minimum sum, which take away your money, put it into a pool, use it for investment, and provide a guaranteed payout.

Now, which scheme is better?



You mean "If", Do you?

There is no need for a passive income for retirement. Different countries allow their citizens a retirement through different ways. In some countries, a pension is paid. Some countries allow the citizens to save tax-free money for investment. Much like the CPF. But in their case, the investment can be done by the citizens.

Our country proposes that the citizens:

1. save 37% of their salary.
2. Put in into an account with the government.
3. Drain it off using public housing.
4. Then recommend the citizens to either sell it off to the next greater fool, or hope that there is an ever increasing number of foreigners to rent the property out to, in order to exchange for a monthly "passive" income.
5. Failing which, hope that the meager amount remaining in the government account can hit a predefined target to exchange for an uncertain payout.

Now, how about:

1. lowering the cost of the public housing
2. so that more money remains in the account
3. and let the people use the money in the account when they retire

Isnt the above an easier to understand scheme?

Bravo!.....

 

[orwell76]

What is the purpose of CPF? To save for my retirement? or to pass money to my descendents after I left?

The policy must match the objective. Since CPF's declared objective is for me to save the money for my retirement, I would say it failed shall I be unable to access the money when I want to retire.

Why would CPF life be unable to pay out? Wasnt the money transferred to government through a bond? Hence, safe? The government would just need to check its committed payout obligation. Then, it sells the "investment" to fund the payout.

I couldn't put it better myself!

 

[orwell76]

gross income how much ?
can SIC a not ?

how come SA more than OA ?
you got used OA for property ?

Hit annual contribution cap for 7 years
OA transfer to SA to generate more interest to offset and minimise the pain of ever increasing minimum sum

Flat fully paid