"Experts Worried About Retirees Squandering CPF monies"
1. The new proposal allows retirees to withdraw up to 20% in a lumpsum at 65. It is a cosmetic scheme. The MSM is trying to make the scheme look material by saying experts worry about retirees squandering their CPF monies.
If you can survive till 65 biologically or financially or both, you will be entitled to a payout of $1,200 p.m. What is the use of withdrawing a lumpsum of $10k or $20k? What can one do with $10k or $20k? The most likely scenario is to pay for an expensive hospital bill. For the poor, whose Minimum Sum is partly met by pledging of HDB property, the up to 20% lumpsum withdrawal is even more meaningless.
If at 55 or 65, a human being is still incapable of handling his own money, he never will.
2. Before the ND Rally, it was announced that the government would make it more convenient for retirees to monetise their HDB flats. But it turned out the other way. Lease buy-back and right-sizing of flats were immediately postponed to 65 instead of 55. Lease buy-back was unpopular at 55, it will become even more unpopular at 65. (1)The lease being sold is shorter by 10 years as time is ticking every minute. (2)The 30-year lease retirees pay the government becomes even more ridiculous as very few people live until 95.
The reason for coming out with the $20k bonus payment is to enable retirees to tide over the difficult period between 55 and 65. Now, with the latest change, where is the compassion?
(Gerard Giam who has the habit of claiming credit should take the debit/blame too.)
3. However, the eligibility age for studio apartments strangely still remains at 55. Perhaps this may be our last hope before jumping into the river.
Firstly, I hope the government is not trying to meet its existing BTO obligations and thereafter amend the age to 65. It is nasty.
Secondly, people living in small flats worth $300,000 may not find downgrading to a studio apartment meaningful especially when resale prices are coming down.
Thirdly, successful bid for a BTO studio apartment is not guaranteed, and it takes a few years for it to be ready. So monetisation starts closer to 60.
To make it more convenient (tolong, in the real sense) for retirees to monetise their flats, perhaps the HDB should buy over the flats directly. It is very difficult to find a buyer and then do the contra, even for literate sellers.
*** six 400 sqf. flats @ 30-yr lease = one 800 sqf. conventional flat @ 99-yr lease ***
It makes sense to build more retirement homes. The young by buying over the old flats will travel less and their children have access to schools. Old people don't need to travel to work or go to school. They need to die gracefully, not die undiscovered until the stench reaches the neighbours. Perhaps retirement homes with basic healthcare can lessen the need for hospitals/hospices. The government can save a lot of money.
Compassionate politicians should not follow the majority vs minority rule and always target conventional families. The number of aged singles, single-member and empty-nest families should not be neglected.
4. A good government should not punish its people
The PAP is behaving like a father. When the child complains pocket money is not enough, the father withdraws it to punish the child.
1. The new proposal allows retirees to withdraw up to 20% in a lumpsum at 65. It is a cosmetic scheme. The MSM is trying to make the scheme look material by saying experts worry about retirees squandering their CPF monies.
If you can survive till 65 biologically or financially or both, you will be entitled to a payout of $1,200 p.m. What is the use of withdrawing a lumpsum of $10k or $20k? What can one do with $10k or $20k? The most likely scenario is to pay for an expensive hospital bill. For the poor, whose Minimum Sum is partly met by pledging of HDB property, the up to 20% lumpsum withdrawal is even more meaningless.
If at 55 or 65, a human being is still incapable of handling his own money, he never will.
2. Before the ND Rally, it was announced that the government would make it more convenient for retirees to monetise their HDB flats. But it turned out the other way. Lease buy-back and right-sizing of flats were immediately postponed to 65 instead of 55. Lease buy-back was unpopular at 55, it will become even more unpopular at 65. (1)The lease being sold is shorter by 10 years as time is ticking every minute. (2)The 30-year lease retirees pay the government becomes even more ridiculous as very few people live until 95.
The reason for coming out with the $20k bonus payment is to enable retirees to tide over the difficult period between 55 and 65. Now, with the latest change, where is the compassion?
(Gerard Giam who has the habit of claiming credit should take the debit/blame too.)
3. However, the eligibility age for studio apartments strangely still remains at 55. Perhaps this may be our last hope before jumping into the river.
Firstly, I hope the government is not trying to meet its existing BTO obligations and thereafter amend the age to 65. It is nasty.
Secondly, people living in small flats worth $300,000 may not find downgrading to a studio apartment meaningful especially when resale prices are coming down.
Thirdly, successful bid for a BTO studio apartment is not guaranteed, and it takes a few years for it to be ready. So monetisation starts closer to 60.
To make it more convenient (tolong, in the real sense) for retirees to monetise their flats, perhaps the HDB should buy over the flats directly. It is very difficult to find a buyer and then do the contra, even for literate sellers.
*** six 400 sqf. flats @ 30-yr lease = one 800 sqf. conventional flat @ 99-yr lease ***
It makes sense to build more retirement homes. The young by buying over the old flats will travel less and their children have access to schools. Old people don't need to travel to work or go to school. They need to die gracefully, not die undiscovered until the stench reaches the neighbours. Perhaps retirement homes with basic healthcare can lessen the need for hospitals/hospices. The government can save a lot of money.
Compassionate politicians should not follow the majority vs minority rule and always target conventional families. The number of aged singles, single-member and empty-nest families should not be neglected.
4. A good government should not punish its people
The PAP is behaving like a father. When the child complains pocket money is not enough, the father withdraws it to punish the child.
