• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Medisave Minimum Sum versus Medisave Required Amount

escher

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Cleanse and flush the shit this bag of vomit just excreted.

Whenever this walking bag of vomit and excrement tell you it is good, you know for sure
PAP again is going to screw and fuck you of more money


Fuck you and your mother for not aborting you


GO STICK YOUR FUCKING HEAD BELOW WATERLINE OF UNFLUSHED PUBLIC TOILET BOWL WITH TURDS AND TISSUE AND RECITE THE SCHOOL PLEDGE 10 TIMES FRONT AND TEN TIMES BACK.

VOTE THE PAP MAGGOTS COCKROACHES ALL OUT IN 2016
DO NOT EVEN LET ONE OF THEM TO STAY AND CORRUPT THE PARLIAMENT
 

PhuaCheeBye

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
medisave is for your own good when you retire or grow old
you will only see the importance when you fall sick and get yourself admitted to hospital
it's your money
nobody is going to rob you or cheat you or deceive you
your money is there - safe with CPFB
so don't worry and sleep well and sleep soundly and healthily.....cheers!
GO FUCK SPIDER. You and your PAP THIEVES!
 

halsey02

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
The maximum balance in Medisave acct is set at Medisave Minimum Sum ($40,500) + $5,000. Any excess contribution above that amount is transferred out to SA or RA accts.

MRA is the amount that you need to top up to your Medisave acct ($38,500) when you turn 55 and have met the Minimum Sum (OA & SA accts). In the long run, I think the MRA = MMS.

In short, when you turn 55 and balance in Medsave acct > MRA, then MRA does not come into play.

Are you sure of that? I do not trust these conniver people anymore, keep changing all the time, at will & anytime they wish, as if they money is theirs & theirs alone; this is the feeling I get. At what age, we could fully take our CPF money, after leaving behind Minimum SUM?? 65, 66, 67 to 99?? or whenever they think, they should give it back ???:(
 
Last edited:

xingguy

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
A simple CPF scheme has now morph into something complex like the sub-prime derivatives, a super ponzi fund.

This issue was debated by Dr. Toh Chin Chye in parliament in 1984. A lot of the negative points brought up by Dr. Toh has now rear its ugly head.

As long as PAP is the ruling government, this Central Ponzi Fund (CPF) will simply get more complex and withdrawal age will be deferred at whims and fancy till "afterlife" and beyond.

Source: http://www.tremeritus.com/2012/02/0...nister-on-trying-to-defer-cpf-withdrawal-age/

Unfortunately, the Report of this Committee on the Problems of the Aged has tried to solve this complex problem by touching on the Central Provident Fund as if that were the only solution, very much the way that the Minister for Health went about trying to solve the problems of the sick by using Medisave and taking off 6% from the CPF to collect monies which is spent by patients in the hospitals.

The reason for all this uneasiness on the problems of the aged is related to the CPF. The problems of the aged have been forgotten because you are touching people’s savings. I related in the debate on Medisave how the Government could cover the cost of the entire operations of the Ministry of Health from revenue earned by the Ministry of Health plus the 2% payroll tax, without touching on savings. You have created a precedent. You have touched savings for Medisave. I abstained from the vote. Others have agreed. So the Minister for Health says, “Well, I have got one nut. Now I can get two nuts. How do I solve the problems of the aged? There was no great opposition to touching the CPF. Now I shall solve the problems of the aged by dipping into the CPF.”

But here, he came across a hornets’ nest. It is because, Mr Speaker, the problem is that those who attempt to seek a solution to the problems of the aged are civil servants who draw pensions to which they do not pay anything. They get a gratuity, two-thirds, and pension, one-third. So it is quite easy then to handle other people’s problems by touching their savings. Pensions do not come from savings. Supposing, if we did convert the entire cost of running the civil service on taxes and savings, I believe you would have a different report today.

The Minister for Finance is extremely concerned with the amount of money being locked into CPF, reducing the liquidity in commercial banks. I think that is a very genuine concern which, as the Minister for Finance, he ought to be very worried out. He should not allow his Minister for Health to dip into the CPF or to increase the CPF, because this is a social problem that is popping up. It must be thought out in breadth. We must have a vision which encompasses breadth. Do not have tunnel vision. I would like to know that we have got telescopic vision. But, Mr Speaker, I have never had the problem of tunnel vision, and that is, looking at a problem along just one line without bothering, or researching in depth, the impact on other areas.

So the problem we should ask ourselves is this. As the deposit in the CPF grows and grows, our balances in the CPF will grow, and when we withdraw that sum of money, will we suddenly have overnight millionaires as retirees? How many of them are there? Will it generate inflation? I do not think it will be, because if two-thirds of the balance are withdrawn for purchasing houses and only one-third for retirement, therefore it is less of a concern that raising the age to 60 or 65 will mean that we will be controlling consumption by the private sector. What is irksome is this: that the Government is using people’s savings and telling them how to spend their savings. That is the nub of the problem.

Mr Speaker, I think fundamental principles are being breached. The fundamental principle is this. The CPF is really a fixed deposit or a loan to Government, which can be redeemed at a fixed date when the contributor is 55 years old. If I were to put this sum of money in a commercial bank and, on the due date I go to the bank to withdraw the money, the manager says, “I am sorry, Dr Toh, you will have to come next year”, there will be a run on the bank! It is as simple as this, that the CPF has lost its credibility, the management of it. This is fundamental. You were taken by surprise by Medisave. Then they say, “6% of your Special Account will be kept for Medisave and you cannot withdraw that, even if you were to die.”

Now I ask the Minister for Health, and I asked him last time, whether his word is binding on future Ministers. Neither will the Minister for Labour’s word be binding on future Ministers for Labour. Can any Government or any Minister guarantee that in future years a law will not be passed that will say, “All Special Accounts in the CPF cannot be withdrawn until you die”? Your Special Account now is up to 10%; 6% Medisave, 4% for what? So unless you use the CPF to buy property, your money is in real danger of being kept under lock and key by others, not under your own lock and key. This is the nub of the problem – the credibility of the management, gradual encroachment into the purpose of the CPF which was instituted really to provide for retirement.

Mr Speaker, as a senior citizen, I am beyond the decision of the Committee whether my withdrawal age should be 60 or 65.

Mr Howe Yoon Chong (Minister for Health): You have already withdrawn yours?

Dr Toh Chin Chye: I have withdrawn mine. But in fairness to my constituents and to others who have not yet reached this age, I ask “Do you wish me to speak, or do you wish me to be dumb?” They say, they are against this. So I have to explain to them the problems that they will be facing and, most importantly, some of them tell me this. They are not going to squander their money on world-wide trips to see Mickey Mouse in Disneyland. Some married late. By the time they retire at 55, their children are due to go to junior college or the university. Many of them are banking on this sum of money to cover the cost of their children’s higher education.

Some hon. Members: Hear! hear!

Dr Toh Chin Chye: If you say they cannot withdraw until 60 or 65, their children had it. It is as simple as that. With these words, Mr Speaker, I pass the debate to abler Members of the House. [Applause]
 
Last edited:

Gigo88

Alfrescian
Loyal
Are you sure of that? I do not trust these conniver people anymore, keep changing all the time, at will & anytime they wish, as if they money is theirs & theirs alone; this is the feeling I get. At what age, we could fully take our CPF money, after leaving behind Minimum SUM?? 65, 66, 67 to 99?? or whenever they think, they should give it back ???:(

These are the current rules. Like you, I don't like these rules, and the changes they make to tied up more of this money. But until 10% of the 60.1% have the courage to do the correct thing, we have to live within these rules. And understand these rules so that you can try to minimize its impact. Or migrate to another country.

PAP has changed the CPF from a fixed deposit to a perpetual bond, which can only be redeemed upon death or migration. No thanks to our Ho Ho Ho, which lost so much money chasing after fads, when they are about to go out of fashion.
 
Last edited:

whoami

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
medisave is for your own good when you retire or grow old
you will only see the importance when you fall sick and get yourself admitted to hospital
it's your money

It will only be good if our govt play her part too.

A dollar for dollar. If i have $40,500 our govt also top up our ac with same amt! The maybe I will sleep soundly.
 
Last edited:
Top