An Open Letter to Singaporeans about Compulsory Annuities

last SG · 2007-09-03T18:51:25+00:00

Hi, While I do not have any facts to back up anything cos wat i'm going to write here is solely based on my views ... I have been reading a lot abt Anti-PAP...

Poh Ah Pak SG

Gazelle, why are you so biased in favour of PAP regime? I'm curious.

Is there some personal benefit or gain for you?

Very few singaporeans outside of the PAP clique would defend PAP as you do.

Trump_Card SG

I think he is being delusional or something ... Even PAP supporters i know doesn't even defend every government policies like he do .

the Bear SG

he has backed them up with figures which are factual..

where's yours? Wink

Lin Yu SG

a sad case, you cannot even be honest with yourself
Sad Sad Sad

LazerLordz SG

Many have said, "Why be honest if you may be paid a lot of money to lie? Laughing "

Trust me, there are many Singaporeans out there like that, and they will be the ones holding us back from growing.

Blame it on extreme pragmatism and a lack of a guiding ideology, if you find that there's too many people who would speak both ways for a pay cheque.

mancha SG

You think you kena hang, sure one.
You frighten.
Then the judge say, life imprisonment.
Wah lau, you vely vely happy.

The plan might be to pay out at age 70.
But announce that it will be 85 or 80.
People kpkb.
Then announcement that it will be 70.
Everybody vely vely happy. Laughing

reddressman SG

I used to be very NAIVE.

I used to beleive that people working for charities do it in order to serve the less fortunate. And being compensated by salaries, there is no reason for them to rob the 'bank'.

Uncle Durian and Yong Tau Foo showed me clearly with cold hard facts that my believe is wrong.

There are evil people in all sectors. All because of Greed for Money.
Money is the Root of all EVIL.

This fiasco made me believe that NO MATTER how CLEAN a system is, there is a VALID REASON to DEMAND for TOTAL TRANSPARENCY. And some may say, no need since so-and-so organization very CLEAN image one. Even for this type of organisation, there is a need for them to comply to be transparent. Put it this way, if an organization claims it is CLEAN, then show the auditors and the public your 'clean' laundry. Can handle the Truth or not? Wink

TheGoodEarth SG

I read the rest of your post. While there are good and legitimate points, there are also misconceptions coupled with grudges.
One line seems to stand out from the many threads in this sub-forum: that any ideas, policies, actions of gahmen, are intended to gain more monies out of people at their expense. So compulsory annuity scheme is one way gahmen robs you in order to build another university. This sounds too contrite. By your reasoning, everything can be linked when they are far from being related. So, how was NUS build or SMU built? Annuities?
Annuity schemes are not attractive only if the interest rate is low. Anyone who wants to understand annuity better should go study finance in detail. Reading papers and hearing what people say is only partial, not total understanding.

I will put it to you very simply: do you have any better way to see the needs of those living into golden years? Never mind what the statistics say. Can you say for sure you won't live beyond 80, 90, 100?

HyperFocal SG

Originally posted by TheGoodEarth:

I read the rest of your post. While there are good and legitimate points, there are also misconceptions coupled with grudges.
One line seems to stand out from the many threads in this sub-forum: that any ideas, policies, actions of gahmen, are intended to gain more monies out of people at their expense. So compulsory annuity scheme is one way gahmen robs you in order to build another university. This sounds too contrite. By your reasoning, everything can be linked when they are far from being related. So, how was NUS build or SMU built? Annuities?
Annuity schemes are not attractive only if the interest rate is low. Anyone who wants to understand annuity better should go study finance in detail. Reading papers and hearing what people say is only partial, not total understanding.

I will put it to you very simply: do you have [b]any better way to see the needs of those living into golden years? Never mind what the statistics say. Can you say for sure you won't live beyond 80, 90, 100?[/b]

This Annuity "idea" is a ploy to hold on to peoples' money, NOT a solution...

The government's duty should be to help create a job market for its people to MAKE A LIVING to support themselves, or at the least, ensure, or 'preserve' an employment market for these older folks to support themselves since they are so Welfare Phobic - and NOT forcefully deny people their rights to their hard earned money..

In my opinioin, people aren't living longer - more of the newer generations who are healthy and young are dropping dead every now and then - and its increasingly frequent now a days....

The only solution is for a formidable opposition party to wake up PAP's money-minded idea...!!!

kramnave SG

Just wait for the full details

hloc SG

Agree.....

Why not wait for more detail before jumping into any conclusion Question

mitzzkai SG

I'll start from the back:

Do I have any better way to see the needs of those living into golden years?

Yes, letting those living into their golden years save for themselves. What is wrong with saving for themselves? It inculcates self-responsibility. The government tells you "you are not responsible enough for your own money". Why not? You earned the money. The government didn't earn it. If those in their "golden years" do not have enough money, it is merely their own fault. Should we subsidise irresponsibility now?

I assure you I have done my research into annuities. I could put it in the most technical jargon, but remember I am writing for ordinary Singaporeans. I am merely putting out the bare facts about annuities. The ordinary Singaporean does not care for convoluted explanations - clear simple facts make my point clearly. Stealing is stealing, jargon or not.

NUS and SMU were built on taxes and CPF contributions. The real reason why the government is pushing back CPF payout age is because they are spending the money, as well as allowing contributors to invest some. This is credit expansion, and over the next 20-30 years inflation will jump remarkably. I personally feel the SGD will fall by 3-4 times in value.

You are right though, I believe the government is always looking to benefit itself at the expense of others. What is "compulsory"? "Compulsory" actions are needed when people acting voluntarily would not do so freely. Does the government do anything productive? No - anything it spends has first to be funded by taxes, monetary inflation, or deficit spending (future taxation). If we strip the government of its self-imposed sanctity, what do we find? We find that the government is nothing more than the most organised group of thieves in history, that have a monopoly of ultimate decision-making (jurisdiction) and a monopoly of taxation over a geographic location. That is all it is.

Sure I could spin it in jargon - but why would I want to? Simple, clear, effective, language makes my point clearly. If robbery (forced taking of money) is wrong, then taxation is wrong, and compulsory annuities is wrong.

kramnave SG

Sorry maybe i missed something but where can i find details of NUS and SMU being built with SPF money and they are continuing to spend it?

reddressman SG

I have asked before and I would like to remind :

1. Do we have the RIGHT to REJECT a proposed policy?
Yes / No.

2. Do we have the RIGHT to manage our own money entirely after say 62? Yes /No?

Its should be either yes / no .

From these questions, a person should appreciate Singapore better.

It can be Yes for either one or both.
It can be No for both.

I dun know. You tell me.

I just hope a person who says Yes to either or both can prove beyond reasonable doubts what he claims.

LazerLordz SG

Originally posted by hloc:

Agree.....

[b]Why not wait for more detail before jumping into any conclusion Question [/b]

While that would be fine, most often than not, when the finalised details are out, the Bill would have likely been passed already.

mitzzkai SG

"There is nothing wrong in being responsible for your own money or savings. That is not the point and you are barking up the wrong tree. If every SGrean is as financial-savvy as Leong Sze Hian or Peter Lim or Wee Cho Yaw, then there is no problem. But can you say that? For those who can manage their finance or are financial-savvy, they don't need annuity, and even if they have to use some of CPF-money to pay for compulsory annuity, it is loose change to them! The problem (as you failed to see) is that the majority of people are not financial-savvy, nor can they save (either not a habit or don't have money to save). How do you deal with these people? "

Simple. You let them feel the poverty that comes from not saving. This is where private charity comes in. Voluntary donations.

"Hmmm ... your research is a bit skewed judging from your statement - stealing. Annuity is based on time value of money plus the element of pooled risks. Everything about money rest on interest rate. If the interest rate is good, any scheme will do. You don't need a PHD to understand this. Loansharks can tell you! And loansharks need no convoluted explanations. "

You are partly correct. However, I am comparing private annuities (far better), with compulsory annuities (no choice, lousier). You are wrong about interest rates though, the whole point of annuities is fixed income.

"Your economics is mixed with personal feelings. Every public good is built with public money raised thru taxation, unless you want to pay for all. While CPF fund is 'borrowed' by govt to finance developments, there is no evidence to show that the real reason is what you claimed. There are many sources of fund for gahmen to tap, CPF is not the only one!
And a note about inflation - I think your ah cong without studying economics will tell you that. So, you want to withdraw all your money from CPF and spend it all at one go, so that inflation will not eat into your hard-earned money? "

Sure, anyone would withdraw his money from the CPF the instant it was allowed. That's common sense. Low-risk investments yield 10% per annum. CPF even with the increase yields only 3.5%. I am reasoning deductively of course, using the American Social Security (of which CPF is a carbon copy). However, you are obviously wrong on "many sources". Taxation, CPF (which is another tax), then what? The only reason for the Gov to hold CPF is that they have used it. Therefore the money coming back must necessarily be newly-created, this is really not new to anyone who has studied social security systems.

By the way, on your ah cong point, I am saying that 3-4x of depreciation results solely from CPF and not from any other fractional-reserve activities by MAS.

"Hahahaha, with or without gahmen, your money is also not safe. Someone may rob you or you get cheated, or inflation will eat your money. Again, why wud gahmen want to steal when it has the power and authority to print money or tax people? Your economics is really mixed up. "

I have no time and patience for a detailed refutation. I give you a reading assignment:

"Human Action" by Ludwig von Mises
"Man, Economy and State" by Murray Rothbard
"The Myth of National Defence", Hoppe, ed.

The last book deals with your question most directly. It can be found for free here: www.mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf

You might also want to research American history, particularly the Revolution and Declaration of Independence, as well as Southern Secession.

"Your jargon is spin wrongly. When you go to a restaurant to eat, it is compulsory that you pay! If it is voluntary - do you think people will pay? I will not, since it is voluntary! So, is the restaurant robbing me? "

Really, my reasoning is wrong? Then pray tell me this, which restaurant forces you to eat at its outlets, and puts you in jail if you don't?

TheGoodEarth SG

Originally posted by mitzzkai:
"There is nothing wrong in being responsible for your own money or savings. That is not the point and you are barking up the wrong tree. If every SGrean is as financial-savvy as Leong Sze Hian or Peter Lim or Wee Cho Yaw, then there is no problem. But can you say that? For those who can manage their finance or are financial-savvy, they don't need annuity, and even if they have to use some of CPF-money to pay for compulsory annuity, it is loose change to them! The problem (as you failed to see) is that the majority of people are not financial-savvy, nor can they save (either not a habit or don't have money to save). How do you deal with these people? "
Simple. You let them feel the poverty that comes from not saving. This is where private charity comes in. Voluntary donations.
That is indeed very simplistic - waiting for charity and voluntary contributions. Put up your hand and show me that you will donate your CPF money to help those people.

"Hmmm ... your research is a bit skewed judging from your statement - stealing. Annuity is based on time value of money plus the element of pooled risks. Everything about money rest on interest rate. If the interest rate is good, any scheme will do. You don't need a PHD to understand this. Loansharks can tell you! And loansharks need no convoluted explanations. "
You are partly correct. However, I am comparing private annuities (far better), with compulsory annuities (no choice, lousier). You are wrong about interest rates though, the whole point of annuities is fixed income.Ahhh , that is making a simplistic assumption. If indeed private annuities can do better, CPF can save itself a lot of headaches! Again, you are wrong about your research on annuities. It is fixed return (for as long as you live) from your initial outlay - but how much to pay you depends on interest rate.

"Your economics is mixed with personal feelings. Every public good is built with public money raised thru taxation, unless you want to pay for all. While CPF fund is 'borrowed' by govt to finance developments, there is no evidence to show that the real reason is what you claimed. There are many sources of fund for gahmen to tap, CPF is not the only one!
And a note about inflation - I think your ah cong without studying economics will tell you that. So, you want to withdraw all your money from CPF and spend it all at one go, so that inflation will not eat into your hard-earned money? "
Sure, anyone would withdraw his money from the CPF the instant it was allowed. That's common sense. Low-risk investments yield 10% per annum. CPF even with the increase yields only 3.5%. I am reasoning deductively of course, using the American Social Security (of which CPF is a carbon copy). However, you are obviously wrong on "many sources". Taxation, CPF (which is another tax), then what? The only reason for the Gov to hold CPF is that they have used it. Therefore the money coming back must necessarily be newly-created, this is really not new to anyone who has studied social security systems.
If CPF is tax, you will never get a cent back! And 10% yield? Tell me where in SG - I want to put my savings there!

"Hahahaha, with or without gahmen, your money is also not safe. Someone may rob you or you get cheated, or inflation will eat your money. Again, why wud gahmen want to steal when it has the power and authority to print money or tax people? Your economics is really mixed up. "
I have no time and patience for a detailed refutation. I give you a reading assignment:

"Human Action" by Ludwig von Mises
"Man, Economy and State" by Murray Rothbard
"The Myth of National Defence", Hoppe, ed.

The last book deals with your question most directly. It can be found for free here: www.mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf

You might also want to research American history, particularly the Revolution and Declaration of Independence, as well as Southern Secession.
I am not American, no time to read their long-winded stories. From your postings here I can see the futility of doing so, of those readings that you have made. You live in SG or US? Look at the sub-prime mess the silly Americans have created!

"Your jargon is spin wrongly. When you go to a restaurant to eat, it is compulsory that you pay! If it is voluntary - do you think people will pay? I will not, since it is voluntary! So, is the restaurant robbing me? "
Really, my reasoning is wrong? Then pray tell me this, which restaurant forces you to eat at its outlets, and puts you in jail if you don't?
OK, so you don't eat? If you do eat, you are saying you don't have to pay? Indeed, you are not compel to eat, not to say you are compel to eat at any restaurant.

mitzzkai SG

"I am not American, no time to read their long-winded stories. From your postings here I can see the futility of doing so, of those readings that you have made. You live in SG or US? Look at the sub-prime mess the silly Americans have created! "

I think this just says it all. If you are unwilling to educate yourself, then there is no point in further wasting my time replying to you. You compound your errors by referring to the sub-prime issue, which has been the work of the Federal Reserve. If anything, it is an indictment of central banking.

To the rest of the forum posters:

I have pointed out the facts. I wish you the best of luck with your protests and your action.

Fingolfin_Noldor SG

I have no time and patience for a detailed refutation. I give you a reading assignment:

"Human Action" by Ludwig von Mises
"Man, Economy and State" by Murray Rothbard
"The Myth of National Defence", Hoppe, ed.

The last book deals with your question most directly. It can be found for free here: www.mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf

You might also want to research American history, particularly the Revolution and Declaration of Independence, as well as Southern Secession.

Hey, here's someone who can actually pierce through the fog of propaganda and idealogy!

Rarity! Indeed, American history has been anything but following the so-called ideals of the founding fathers, what with the first military adventure was the invasion of Mexico and Texas, of which the latter was under the control of Mexico back then.

And GoodEarth, you are just typical of many Singaporeans who don't bother to read history and draw parallels. You do realise that, to the more sophisticates, you sound like a child who's saying "wa wa wa, my daddy would never cheat me!" Yeah right.

And just by the way, go read some economics. CPF is a tax. Just because you get it back decades later doesn't mean it doesn't assert the same influence. By the way, are you that stupid to rely on CPF for retirement? Or annuities for that matter?

TheGoodEarth SG

Every forumers think they are more educated than another. Don't make claims, prove by your arguments! Federal Reserve is not american? Btw, I didn't introduce this in my original post but to add to your suggestions to read american history! I told you: I am not american, and I don't need anerican education. What is so superior about them?
You have pointed out facts to your liking. Those facts I have rebutted.

« Previous Page Next Page »