HDB loans is OA rate + 0.1%
Some banks are lending at SIBOR + alpha (capped at OA rate for first 10 years)
The interest rates are practically 3.5% on OA and 5% for SA and MA for majority of Singaporeans due to the extra 1% for the first $60,000 combined balance. Roy should know since he likes to harp Singaporeans have low CPF balances. Yet he keeps quoting 2.5% and then say our CPF interest rate is very low.
He then proposes 1% more.
Now, when a young couple buys a flat, their OA balance would be wiped to zero. If the government pays 1% more, they will have a financial burden of 1% more on a big loan of say $400,000. On the other hand, they are getting practically nothing on their OA. So young people, do you want 1% more?
Now, we all know interest rate and tenor are correlated. The basic question to retirees is: Do we want the government to change the Minimum Withdrawal Age to 67 and beyond?
Some people are more PAP than PAP. For example, TRS shows a video of how a man has been squandering his money on a China mistress. It faked a story of a 66-year old woman refusing to sell her flat. Some people write against monetisation of flats. Is turning people into collateral damage an ethical way to convert votes in favour of the Opposition?
Monthly payout of $1,200 p.m. is a floor. People should have more - allowance from children, other savings/investments, huge capital gains from HDB flats, etc. If they don't, then it is back to how the issue started, some people are poor. If so, then we should target them. Not drag everybody in. It may lead to worse policies - like higher Minimum Sum or Minimum Withdrawal Age. Already, the revamped compulsory MediShield Life disadvantages certain people. The revamped CPF Life where there is compulsory bequest is also sub-optimal.
Because we own a flat, we have been saving on rentals for decades. Just imagine paying a would-have-been monthly rental of $1,500, we should be peeing in our pants. Also stop bullshitting that we will become homeless. Under lease buyback, you get to stay in your existing flat, under right-sizing, you downgrade to a smaller flat or a brand new studio apartment with furnishing. Currently, many old people don't even have cooker-hoods/big electric switches/built-in cabinets/pedestal toilet bowls in their homes.
CPF returns should be based on the weighted average return paid by the CPF Board and the returns from money withdrawn for property investment. They should be many times higher than 2.5% to 5%. Even if the younger generation won't be able to enjoy the same kind of returns, it is still a hedge against inflation. Young Singaporeans should also think harder about changes to SIBOR and OA rate.
Free to choose (Milton Friedman) is the answer, not more nannying.
Some banks are lending at SIBOR + alpha (capped at OA rate for first 10 years)
The interest rates are practically 3.5% on OA and 5% for SA and MA for majority of Singaporeans due to the extra 1% for the first $60,000 combined balance. Roy should know since he likes to harp Singaporeans have low CPF balances. Yet he keeps quoting 2.5% and then say our CPF interest rate is very low.
He then proposes 1% more.
Now, when a young couple buys a flat, their OA balance would be wiped to zero. If the government pays 1% more, they will have a financial burden of 1% more on a big loan of say $400,000. On the other hand, they are getting practically nothing on their OA. So young people, do you want 1% more?
Now, we all know interest rate and tenor are correlated. The basic question to retirees is: Do we want the government to change the Minimum Withdrawal Age to 67 and beyond?
Some people are more PAP than PAP. For example, TRS shows a video of how a man has been squandering his money on a China mistress. It faked a story of a 66-year old woman refusing to sell her flat. Some people write against monetisation of flats. Is turning people into collateral damage an ethical way to convert votes in favour of the Opposition?
Monthly payout of $1,200 p.m. is a floor. People should have more - allowance from children, other savings/investments, huge capital gains from HDB flats, etc. If they don't, then it is back to how the issue started, some people are poor. If so, then we should target them. Not drag everybody in. It may lead to worse policies - like higher Minimum Sum or Minimum Withdrawal Age. Already, the revamped compulsory MediShield Life disadvantages certain people. The revamped CPF Life where there is compulsory bequest is also sub-optimal.
Because we own a flat, we have been saving on rentals for decades. Just imagine paying a would-have-been monthly rental of $1,500, we should be peeing in our pants. Also stop bullshitting that we will become homeless. Under lease buyback, you get to stay in your existing flat, under right-sizing, you downgrade to a smaller flat or a brand new studio apartment with furnishing. Currently, many old people don't even have cooker-hoods/big electric switches/built-in cabinets/pedestal toilet bowls in their homes.
CPF returns should be based on the weighted average return paid by the CPF Board and the returns from money withdrawn for property investment. They should be many times higher than 2.5% to 5%. Even if the younger generation won't be able to enjoy the same kind of returns, it is still a hedge against inflation. Young Singaporeans should also think harder about changes to SIBOR and OA rate.
Free to choose (Milton Friedman) is the answer, not more nannying.
Last edited:
