The truth about why you have to keep working.....

[Gearoil]

There was a time when I looked at the period, when one turns 55 and he/she can hope to see the better part of the days, with his/her remaining time to spend leisurely, for the last part of their lives.

 

Then somewhere in the 1990s, it seems that the number has changed to somewhere close to 60.

 

Come to the year 2000+ and the number has gone to somewhere 62 and then maybe to to 65.

 

It does not take a genius to guess why the number keep going up, with seemingly no hope for the average Joe to 'rest his legs' and enjoy the last remaining part of his life.

 

It seems obvious, that someone has taken the better and larger part of his money, saved by Joe in his earlier years, meant for his retirement and used it in whatever way, except for Joe himself in his old age.

 

Did Joe, thru of his 20 to 30+ years of working, see any increase to his personal wealth?

 

Or did he get any healthier to be able to live longer?

 

The answer would be a definite ..NO!

 

Well, what Joe did realised for sure, is that he had to pay more and more, just to be able to live modestly from year to year.

 

Which probably accounts for where his own money saved by himself, apart from those that were taken away from him, had gone to.

 

Which was to counter the ever rising cost of living and seemingly nothing much left for himself in the end.

 

The question must obviously turn to ...where did the money Joe had to stash up by law, have gone to?

 

It seems that all the infrastruture around him, from the gleaming public trains and stations to the high skyscrapers and expensive looking hospitals and many other things Joe gets to see everyday and read everday in the local news but provide nothing for him in his time of need, when he is in his 60s.

 

And with the constant public propaganda that has been going around, since Joe left his last job when he was in his 60s, urging him to go on working, just to be able to feed himself, when he had already expended all his energy thru the 30+ years of his working life and have nothing more to give but shaky legs with constant aches.

 

Did Joe know that this would be how he would end up? Eithier, hoping that his grown up children are filial enough and let him have the better part of his days or else what could he have done to avoid being in such a state?

 

it was a time when Joe was in his prime when such issue seemingly was never a concern for him.

 

It did dawn upon him and got him uneasy when he was close to his 50s but everything in his life from the money he was supoosed to have, in his retirement fund for his retirement, to his dream of a easy life, was never a decision that he was ever in control of, let alone to be allowed to ask for his 'old age' money, that was really his to be returned to him.

 

Why did Joe ever allow such things to happen to him? Or was Joe to be blamed too?

[Moredhel]

I'd say Joe's partially to be blamed.

 

He should haven been more aware of his surroundings and done either one of 2 things:

 

1) To Choose the law-makers correctly by making sure that there's someone voicing out his and his fellow man's concerns.

 

2) To decide after realising his dwindling savings that enough is enough and pack his bags for greener pastures.

 

 

However, I digress. I would probably have to keep working till 85 and better have kids to pass the cash to if I decide to stay on...

[Jman888]

:o you start a thread

 

not my type of topic, just drop by to say

[GoodCar]

Starting a TR in MCF ?

[Summer69]

To retire early, save, save, save, save (e.g. don't drive car, eat cheap food, don't go tour, don't be kiasu) and when turn 55, sell your HDB, withdraw all CPF, apply Malaysia citizen and starts learning malayu..........want or not?

 

btw, all those Malaysian workers/ engineers/ manager in and out of Singapore will have the last laugh when they turn 55.

[Moredhel]

  On 10/29/2010 at 9:15 AM, GoodCar said:

Starting a TR in MCF ?

 

Mai so fierce. Where got TR involved?

 

We're just discussing the life of Joe...

 

[Beehive3783]

With this newly proposed retirement policy, I can now safely proceed to upgrade my medishield and pay by CPF.. and also plonk all the CPF money into a new HDB flat as well. Use it up now rather than not having the chance to use it later..

[Zyrofillica]

  On 10/29/2010 at 9:06 AM, Moredhel said:

I'd say Joe's partially to be blamed.

 

He should haven been more aware of his surroundings and done either one of 2 things:

 

1) To Choose the law-makers correctly by making sure that there's someone voicing out his and his fellow man's concerns.

 

2) To decide after realising his dwindling savings that enough is enough and pack his bags for greener pastures.

 

 

However, I digress. I would probably have to keep working till 85 and better have kids to pass the cash to if I decide to stay on...

 

you forgot a much more feasible option

 

3) shoot himself when he reaches 60. wait for pple to burn mercedes and bungalow for him. enjoy for eternity.

 

i think by 70 u also cannot drive taxi already. wat job can u still do at 70 other than be MM or wipe table

[Topgun]

Edited: wrong thread

Edited October 29, 2010 by Topgun

[Yattokame]

wrong thread lah uncle

[Singhao]

  On 10/29/2010 at 9:00 AM, Gearoil said:

The question must obviously turn to ...where did the money Joe had to stash up by law, have gone to?

 

Firstly, I must state that I have never voted for the ruling party.

 

While I dun agree with the govt withholding our cpf savings till who knows when and basically treating us like children, maybe we can analyze things further and look at the real impact.

 

Let's just assume for simplicity that the monthly contribution to OA is $900 per month from age 25 to 55 (i.e. Ur pay is $4500 or above from 25 to 55). Your total contribution would be $324,000 in this period.

 

Let's say u buy a HDB flat valued at $300,000 and u use ur cpf to pay for the mortgage instalments. Under current law, u can use up to $300,00 of ur cpf if I'm not wrong.

 

Let's say u have a uni going child. U use up $24,000 to pay for his/her school fees, which u make an election to stop repayments from ur child upon graduation.

 

Using the above example, there is actually no real impact cos we would have used up every penny of the cpf OA. Open to discussion. I may be wrong...

 

[Pigkachu]

If u want to retire earlier then retire la. no one can stop u

[Darthrevan]

raising the retirement age is one thing..choosing to work until retirement age is another..seriously u can don't work, no one's forcing u

[Good-Carbuyer]

  On 10/29/2010 at 9:00 AM, Gearoil said:

There was a time when I looked at the period, when one turns 55 and he/she can hope to see the better part of the days, with his/her remaining time to spend leisurely, for the last part of their lives.

 

Then somewhere in the 1990s, it seems that the number has changed to somewhere close to 60.

 

Come to the year 2000+ and the number has gone to somewhere 62 and then maybe to to 65.

 

It does not take a genius to guess why the number keep going up, with seemingly no hope for the average Joe to 'rest his legs' and enjoy the last remaining part of his life.

 

It seems obvious, that someone has taken the better and larger part of his money, saved by Joe in his earlier years, meant for his retirement and used it in whatever way, except for Joe himself in his old age.

 

Did Joe, thru of his 20 to 30+ years of working, see any increase to his personal wealth?

 

Or did he get any healthier to be able to live longer?

Very observant

The answer would be a definite ..NO!

 

Well, what Joe did realised for sure, is that he had to pay more and more, just to be able to live modestly from year to year.

 

Which probably accounts for where his own money saved by himself, apart from those that were taken away from him, had gone to.

 

Which was to counter the ever rising cost of living and seemingly nothing much left for himself in the end.

 

The question must obviously turn to ...where did the money Joe had to stash up by law, have gone to?

 

It seems that all the infrastruture around him, from the gleaming public trains and stations to the high skyscrapers and expensive looking hospitals and many other things Joe gets to see everyday and read everday in the local news but provide nothing for him in his time of need, when he is in his 60s.

 

And with the constant public propaganda that has been going around, since Joe left his last job when he was in his 60s, urging him to go on working, just to be able to feed himself, when he had already expended all his energy thru the 30+ years of his working life and have nothing more to give but shaky legs with constant aches.

 

Did Joe know that this would be how he would end up? Eithier, hoping that his grown up children are filial enough and let him have the better part of his days or else what could he have done to avoid being in such a state?

 

it was a time when Joe was in his prime when such issue seemingly was never a concern for him.

 

It did dawn upon him and got him uneasy when he was close to his 50s but everything in his life from the money he was supoosed to have, in his retirement fund for his retirement, to his dream of a easy life, was never a decision that he was ever in control of, let alone to be allowed to ask for his 'old age' money, that was really his to be returned to him.

 

Why did Joe ever allow such things to happen to him? Or was Joe to be blamed too?

Observant, but a little too late for many/most?

Edited October 29, 2010 by Good-Carbuyer

[Good-Carbuyer]

  On 10/29/2010 at 9:06 AM, Moredhel said:

I'd say Joe's partially to be blamed.

 

He should haven been more aware of his surroundings and done either one of 2 things:

 

1) To Choose the law-makers correctly by making sure that there's someone voicing out his and his fellow man's concerns.

 

2) To decide after realising his dwindling savings that enough is enough and pack his bags for greener pastures.

 

 

However, I digress. I would probably have to keep working till 85 and better have kids to pass the cash to if I decide to stay on...

Poor Joe worked so hard his whole life that he noticed scenario 2, a little too late. Choice of scenario1 not practical (DIY the better choice)

[Good-Carbuyer]

  On 10/29/2010 at 9:26 AM, Zyrofillica said:

you forgot a much more feasible option

 

3) shoot himself when he reaches 60. wait for pple to burn mercedes and bungalow for him. enjoy for eternity.

 

i think by 70 u also cannot drive taxi already. wat job can u still do at 70 other than be MM or wipe table

Jokes aside, as a kid, my father introduced an old neighbour cycling a utility bicycle uphill by the front of our house every morning: That man already 90 years old. I hope to be among sportsman at that age, too

Edited October 29, 2010 by Good-Carbuyer

[Scoots]

  On 10/29/2010 at 3:33 PM, Singhao said:

Firstly, I must state that I have never voted for the ruling party.

 

While I dun agree with the govt withholding our cpf savings till who knows when and basically treating us like children, maybe we can analyze things further and look at the real impact.

 

Let's just assume for simplicity that the monthly contribution to OA is $900 per month from age 25 to 55 (i.e. Ur pay is $4500 or above from 25 to 55). Your total contribution would be $324,000 in this period.

 

Let's say u buy a HDB flat valued at $300,000 and u use ur cpf to pay for the mortgage instalments. Under current law, u can use up to $300,00 of ur cpf if I'm not wrong.

The 'problem' here is that technically, I am not using my own money. I am taking a loan from CPF so they charge me interest at 2.6%. However, even though I am taking a loan from CPF, they are saying that I am taking away the money I should have keep in there and that it would have been earning interest at 2.5%, so when I do repay the loan amount, I must also top up the 'loss' in interest earning.

 

To illustrate how absurb the reasoning is, just replace "CPF" with any bank you like and you can see how wrong the logic is in the above statement (I take money from my savings account, the bank can still say that later I need to top up with the loss in interest earning that they were boligated to earn for me?!?)

 

  On 10/29/2010 at 3:33 PM, Singhao said:

Let's say u have a uni going child. U use up $24,000 to pay for his/her school fees, which u make an election to stop repayments from ur child upon graduation.

 

Using the above example, there is actually no real impact cos we would have used up every penny of the cpf OA. Open to discussion. I may be wrong...

Similar to the above, my child will have to pay me 'interest'

 

Now, let's think about it: Which/What institution in the world can actually make money from letting personX spend his own money???...

 

And while some may argue that "CPF money is STILL your money" ...so no harm in even paying yourself interest right? yes, I agree. But also remember: It's use is restricted and limited. Cash on hand that can be used for needs/investments are more useful than an electronic string of digits in a virtual vault. And with all the evolving terms to 'take out' your money, it's not impossible, and probabaly more likely, that most of us will expire without having fully taken back our CPF money in full.

 

Edited October 30, 2010 by Scoots

[Mrlau]

  On 10/29/2010 at 3:41 PM, Pigkachu said:

If u want to retire earlier then retire la. no one can stop u

 

But if I can't, I need to find someone to blame...