You are a little bit more sensible here. Any scheme when first
mooted or implemented cannot be the perfect scheme. It takes time
to learn and adjust. It is the fundamental principle and
purpose of the compulsory annuity scheme that is being
discussed here albiet political rhetorics and personal agenda of a
few who tried to run me down but cannot even answer simple
questions.
If this is a debate on the form and manner of the scheme, then it
is a different tune.
Many may have disagreed simply like I said: when it comes to money
and CPF, a lot of emotions go beyond sense and sensibility. There
are realities we just refused to see and some even got the audacity
to call that illusional or delusional. However, when asked if they
should live to 90 and beg on the street, what would they do? -
can't even answer!
If such people don't even think hard about their financials in
their old age, you think they are financial savvy, like what so
many claimed here?
Quote me five financial planning experts who disagree with such
idea (annuity), then you have my attention!
Since you are a little bit more sensible than the others, let me
point you to an article in Money page H34 of Friday ST, and I quote
Nobel laurette Professor Merton of Harvard University: He cautioned
Singaporeans not to confuse a 'crummy version' of an annuity with
the incorrect notion that they are fundamental flawed in concept.
In other words, the concept or principle is good but the scheme has
to be well planned. You can read the rest for yourself. So, don't
just agree or disagree without some balanced research. If you
listen to one party only, then you are delusional!
