Reduce credit card limit

sohguanh

Supremacy Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
9,553
Reaction score
3,238
LOL ...so very true ..

so safe until even if you O$P$ creditors still cannot touch your SA ( until you reach 65 )
The whole CPF scheme depend on the logic the member live long life. If say you short life then that scheme don't benefit you instead is your next of kin. Twisted logic. My own hard earned monies give other ppl shiok? They no leg no hand cannot earn monies must wait for other ppl CPF monies give them?

This is why I feel CPF scheme is flawed. The earlier return all at age 55 still the best but they keep delaying so they can take and invest in the name say for our retirement. It is like vaccination is not mandatory but yet is it?
 

reddevil0728

Great Supremacy Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
66,289
Reaction score
5,867
The whole CPF scheme depend on the logic the member live long life. If say you short life then that scheme don't benefit you instead is your next of kin. Twisted logic. My own hard earned monies give other ppl shiok? They no leg no hand cannot earn monies must wait for other ppl CPF monies give them?

This is why I feel CPF scheme is flawed. The earlier return all at age 55 still the best but they keep delaying so they can take and invest in the name say for our retirement. It is like vaccination is not mandatory but yet is it?
whose twisted logic? yours of the logic of the CPF scheme?

The other ppl are your NOK and not some strangers no unless you somehow have a very estrange relationship. In that case you can always nominate someone else you think that deserve to use it other than you.

yes agree with you, you may not want your NOK to have over-reliance on you, and they should make their own living. maybe that's more for kids. but if it goes to your spouse where you all have decided long ago that he/she doesn't work but to take care of the kids, will you say the same?

The flawed logic of yours is that everybody cares about their own retirement and knows how to be financially savvy. the reality is not the case. You say this because you think you can managed. But what if you somehow got scammed of your money down the road, and you no more money for your retirement how? then expect tax payers to pay?

What about those who aren't financially savvy and splurge, then who end up suffer? tax payers.

Not as if the entire amount that you earn goes into CPF. our existing CPF is already complicated enough, imagine there are so many more exceptions. it will even be more complicated.

So it is only societal good that everybody take one for each other (from the perspective of time rather than whether you own the money or not) so that we wouldn't unnecessarily be burdened by others.

Only in Singapore we have people who hates social security. in other countries no such issue.

So not sure which is more flawed
 

sohguanh

Supremacy Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
9,553
Reaction score
3,238
whose twisted logic? yours of the logic of the CPF scheme?

The other ppl are your NOK and not some strangers no unless you somehow have a very estrange relationship. In that case you can always nominate someone else you think that deserve to use it other than you.

yes agree with you, you may not want your NOK to have over-reliance on you, and they should make their own living. maybe that's more for kids. but if it goes to your spouse where you all have decided long ago that he/she doesn't work but to take care of the kids, will you say the same?

The flawed logic of yours is that everybody cares about their own retirement and knows how to be financially savvy. the reality is not the case. You say this because you think you can managed. But what if you somehow got scammed of your money down the road, and you no more money for your retirement how? then expect tax payers to pay?

What about those who aren't financially savvy and splurge, then who end up suffer? tax payers.

Not as if the entire amount that you earn goes into CPF. our existing CPF is already complicated enough, imagine there are so many more exceptions. it will even be more complicated.

So it is only societal good that everybody take one for each other (from the perspective of time rather than whether you own the money or not) so that we wouldn't unnecessarily be burdened by others.

Only in Singapore we have people who hates social security. in other countries no such issue.

So not sure which is more flawed
So have options then. Ppl who feel they are not investment savvy then go with the RA CPF life system etc. Those savvy allow them withdraw all at age 55.

Currently there are no options. The whole CPF scheme is forced down the throats of ALL members.

Spore is a democratic country or is it?
 

reddevil0728

Great Supremacy Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
66,289
Reaction score
5,867
So have options then. Ppl who feel they are not investment savvy then go with the RA CPF life system etc. Those savvy allow them withdraw all at age 55.

Currently there are no options. The whole CPF scheme is forced down the throats of all members.

Spore is a democratic country or is it?
i think you are missing the point.

So address this: What if people who are supposedly investment savvy somehow lose all their money after withdrawal. Who will be responsible? Have a solution to this first before talking about option. Don't say "they deserve it" and end it there, because that's not how it works.

Is australia a democratic country? is their superannuation scheme also forced down the throats of all members? in fact I think many want to contribute more but they can't.
 

sohguanh

Supremacy Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
9,553
Reaction score
3,238
i think you are missing the point.

So address this: What if people who are supposedly investment savvy somehow lose all their money after withdrawal. Who will be responsible? Have a solution to this first before talking about option. Don't say "they deserve it" and end it there, because that's not how it works.

Is australia a democratic country? is their superannuation scheme also forced down the throats of all members? in fact I think many want to contribute more but they can't.
Simple have a law agreement if take all later use finish ask govt feed ownself settle. It is law abiding all those violate find ways to feed ownself. I know you are going to bite on this so I wait for you attack this point and wait eagerly for your argument.

The gist still the same there are currently NO options given and we are talking about our own hard earned monies.
 

wira

Supremacy Member
Joined
May 6, 2000
Messages
5,772
Reaction score
771
So have options then. Ppl who feel they are not investment savvy then go with the RA CPF life system etc. Those savvy allow them withdraw all at age 55.

Currently there are no options. The whole CPF scheme is forced down the throats of ALL members.

Spore is a democratic country or is it?
i believe people who are investment savvy would probably already have sufficient investments for their retirement and would not urgently need the all the cpf monies at age 55.

those who are not already can withdraw their cpf partially at age 55 with remaining amt as the last line of defence to allow them basic quality of life after age 65.
 

reddevil0728

Great Supremacy Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
66,289
Reaction score
5,867
Simple have a law agreement if take all later use finish ask govt feed ownself settle. It is law abiding all those violate find ways to feed ownself. I know you are going to bite on this so I wait for you attack this point and wait we eagerly for your argument.

The gist still the same there are currently NO options given and we are talking about our own hard earned monies.
Before I "attack" or what not (tbh not sure why you feel so offended), let me clarify what you are saying as it is a little confusing.

Are you saying to have a law that binds the person who willingly withdraw the money such that if they lose all the money, they cannot expect government to take care of them financially and medically, and they just be left on the street to suffer and die? Is that what you are suggesting?

Can you address the point about Australia. Do they have options over their own hard earned monies? Because you seem to suggest that Singapore is the anomaly. Actually even Malaysia also.
 

reddevil0728

Great Supremacy Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
66,289
Reaction score
5,867
i believe people who are investment savvy would probably already have sufficient investments for their retirement and would not urgently need the all the cpf monies at age 55.

those who are not already can withdraw their cpf partially at age 55 with remaining amt as the last line of defence to allow them basic quality of life after age 65.
Another good and fair point. If you are investment savvy, what's CPF to you?

If one have so much qualms about not getting CPF and claim to be investment savvy, I would really doubt they have the capability to sustain their retirement lifestyle. The more I think we should bind such people even more.

It is precisely because so many people overestimated themselves, the OCBC phishing scam as an example, that's where there's so many issue. After getting into trouble because of their own incompetence and arrogance then ask for sympathy.
 

sohguanh

Supremacy Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
9,553
Reaction score
3,238
Before I "attack" or what not (tbh not sure why you feel so offended), let me clarify what you are saying as it is a little confusing.

Are you saying to have a law that binds the person who willingly withdraw the money such that if they lose all the money, they cannot expect government to take care of them financially and medically, and they just be left on the street to suffer and die? Is that what you are suggesting?

Can you address the point about Australia. Do they have options over their own hard earned monies? Because you seem to suggest that Singapore is the anomaly. Actually even Malaysia also.
Yes ownself die of hunger since you know that when you sign the law agreement.

Msia EPF withdraw all at age 55 no such stupid RA CPF life at 65. They age 55 really take all monies enjoy the fruits of their labor. I know next you will say migrate to Msia then. Confirm winning argument. Will you use that?
 

sohguanh

Supremacy Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
9,553
Reaction score
3,238
i believe people who are investment savvy would probably already have sufficient investments for their retirement and would not urgently need the all the cpf monies at age 55.

those who are not already can withdraw their cpf partially at age 55 with remaining amt as the last line of defence to allow them basic quality of life after age 65.
Well I like the option to decide urgent or not. If I investment savvy even not urgent my own monies I want to withdraw all why cannot? I want the option to choose for which there is none currently.

I know other ppl will use the last winning argument not happy migrate lor can withdraw all. Confirm winning argument so are you going to use that ?
 

reddevil0728

Great Supremacy Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
66,289
Reaction score
5,867
Yes ownself die of hunger since you know that when you sign the law agreement.

Msia EPF withdraw all at age 55 no such stupid RA CPF life at 65. They age 55 really take all monies enjoy the fruits of their labor. I know next you will say migrate to Msia then. Confirm winning argument. Will you use that?
lol. Lucky you aren't policy maker. If you live in a country where there are so many beggars on the street and starve till they die, you wouldn't be in your position sprouting whatever you are sprouting.

Sure why not since it is a winning argument? You can also address Australia example. Why avoid that since you have so much wisdom over what works best.

You can't expect to have your cake and eat it too. You are essentially picking and choose what you like. Doesn't work like that.

Look up what's impossible trinity.
 

reddevil0728

Great Supremacy Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
66,289
Reaction score
5,867
Well I like the option to decide urgent or not. If I investment savvy even not urgent my own monies I want to withdraw all why cannot? I want the option to choose for which there is none currently.

I know other ppl will use the last winning argument not happy migrate lor can withdraw all. Confirm winning argument so are you going to use that ?
Not everything is personal choice. Some personal choice have greater societal implications.

If it is winning argument, why not use it? Dunno your logic. You mean you wouldn't use winning argument?
 

sohguanh

Supremacy Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
9,553
Reaction score
3,238
lol. Lucky you aren't policy maker. If you live in a country where there are so many beggars on the street and starve till they die, you wouldn't be in your position sprouting whatever you are sprouting.

Sure why not since it is a winning argument? You can also address Australia example. Why avoid that since you have so much wisdom over what works best.

You can't expect to have your cake and eat it too. You are essentially picking and choose what you like. Doesn't work like that.

Look up what's impossible trinity.
So you invoke the holy argument Not happy migrate lor. Thank you I was hoping for different argument as I have been engaging with pro CPF ppl regarding this for many years and all end with this holy argument.

It is a pity as I thought you wil give a different argument but I guess birds of the same feather flock together.

I shall end my comments then. Thank you for your time.
 

wira

Supremacy Member
Joined
May 6, 2000
Messages
5,772
Reaction score
771
we are digressing a bit from the thread topic but i believe Singapore does benefits from its "nanny state" policies.

We cannot have chewing gum and no eating/drinking on bus /mrt but we benefits from a cleaner public facilities

Must buy COE before we can own car but we benefit from a smoother traffic without gridlocked james

People in HDB have "quota" of different ethnic groups but we benefit from a greater racial tolerance and cohesive society

We do not have "Rights to bear arms " but we benefit from a super safe and almost crime free society.

you get the point.
 

reddevil0728

Great Supremacy Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
66,289
Reaction score
5,867
So you invoke the holy argument Not happy migrate lor. Thank you I was hoping for different argument as I have been engaging with pro CPF ppl regarding this for many years and all end with this holy argument.

I shall end my comments then. Thank you for your time.
If you urself recognise that it is the winning argument, yet you feel you know better, isn't that the irony?

It's precisely people like you that we need to guard against in the form of CPF.

The arrogance is telling
 

reddevil0728

Great Supremacy Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
66,289
Reaction score
5,867
we are digressing a bit from the thread topic but i believe Singapore does benefits from its "nanny state" policies.

We cannot have chewing gum and no eating/drinking on bus /mrt but we benefits from a cleaner public facilities

Must buy COE before we can own car but we benefit from a smoother traffic without gridlocked james

People in HDB have "quota" of different ethnic groups but we benefit from a greater racial tolerance and cohesive society

We do not have "Rights to bear arms " but we benefit from a super safe and almost crime free society.

you get the point.
sadly I don't think poster does. he operates on the want to have the cake and eat it school of thought.
 

sohguanh

Supremacy Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
9,553
Reaction score
3,238
If you urself recognise that it is the winning argument, yet you feel you know better, isn't that the irony?

It's precisely people like you that we need to guard against in the form of CPF.

The arrogance is telling
If you read my earlier post I was hoping to get a different argument but you are the same like all of them use back the same winning argument.

I overestimate your capabilities. For this I fully take the blame just like I miscued the fund I pick to win but lose monies.
 

reddevil0728

Great Supremacy Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
66,289
Reaction score
5,867
If you read my earlier post I was hoping to get a different argument but you are the same like all of them use back the same winning argument.

I overestimate your capabilities. For this I fully take the blame just like I miscued the fund I pick to win but lose monies.
If you already recognise it is already a winning argument, why is there a need to have a different argument for the same outcome? If you don't want to accept it, you never will. You can't have the cake and eat it.

Sure so be it. That's just me, but it doesn't change the fact that your logic is flawed. You expressing your anger on me wouldn't get you anywhere closer to your outcome other than just make you look like you are doing it out of spite.

And of course in case you forgot, you chose not to address my point about whether Australia is a democratic country and whether their members are given a choice.

You also said you will end your comments but you decided to proceed.

Just a reminder there.
 
Important Forum Advisory Note
This forum is moderated by volunteer moderators who will react only to members' feedback on posts. Moderators are not employees or representatives of HWZ Forums. Forum members and moderators are responsible for their own posts. Please refer to our Community Guidelines and Standards and Terms and Conditions for more information.
Top