<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD class=heading>Latest comments</TD></TR><TR><TD id=messageDisplayRegion width="100%"><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" class=Post cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Serve Me Right Stupid Fool I Am.
</TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Posted by: anthonlibeth at Mon Nov 16 22:55:28 SGT 2009
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" class=AlternatePost cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Whatever it is the government never have any intention of returning our CPF money to us.
They mean good for you but they are using your money to take care of yourself.
All Singaporeans are just working for the government. Our money become their money.
Look at how your contribution being diverted to special a/c and medisave which you can never touch.
Our CPF is as good as gone and all our dreams are being shattered by our very own Boss which we had elected.
SERVE ME RIGHT STUOID FOOL I AM.
</TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Posted by: anthonlibeth at Mon Nov 16 22:53:58 SGT 2009
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" class=Post cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Hi mingsuny,
I wouldn't be surprise come next they raise the age to 68 years old. ( I may be wrong here, but I think the most fearful part is when citizens start to die since the remaining balance in the CPF account will have to be paid in lump sum. Maybe it could be because of this fear that they came out with the Annuity plan so that payments can be made in instalment basis. And since many account holder would prefer to have higher payout, there would be nothing left for the account holder's beneficiaries when the account holder dies. )
</TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Posted by: AndyMike at Mon Nov 16 22:45:25 SGT 2009
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" class=AlternatePost cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Hi AndyMike,
I think the situation is crystal clear after today's announcement that the employers need to pay 3 months of compensation to those discontinued employees of between 62 and 65. The government wants the employers to shoulder part of the elders' folks living expenses but at the same time demand the elderly to continue working.
When the elderly continue working, they can pay for their living expenses without drawing down the CPF monthly allowances. Who gains? The government. They can defer payment and hold the cash to do investment. Or worse, they don't have the money to make lump sum payment to the CPF members, thus trying all ways and means to stall time.
From another perspective, since the elderly still have earning powers, they are expected to pay taxes to the government. In conclusion, the government can gain in every way when the retirement is raised to 65. I hope I have decifered the government's intention!
</TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Posted by: mingsuny at Mon Nov 16 22:29:42 SGT 2009
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" class=Post cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Hi mingsuny,
I am still trying to figure out the correlationship between the Board's objective of
1) providing for retirement,
2) the maximum contribution cap per annum,
3) the minimum sum scheme,
4) the recently adjusted minimum sum in the Special Account, as well as the urgent need to "replenish" our greying population with immigrants.
5) the increase in withdrawal age from initially 55 years old to 65 years old.
As I had mentioned to you before, (2) & (3) contradicts (1) which is a very noble objective But most of all, I find it hard to understand (5). What is the real objective behind increasing the withdrawal age?
</TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Posted by: AndyMike at Mon Nov 16 21:07:43 SGT 2009
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
