Major CPF policy shift on the way

[corydorus]

Sometimes i put myself as G and see the problem myself. The point is Gov rule the country that we all lives in. The reality is there will be sizable portion of the population will blame the gov once their money runs out, falling sick without medical care and start sleeping on the street. I know you will not. I will not.

When media starts reporting score of homeless, beggars running on the street, ... and we go one big round on how to avoid this situation and may likely derive the same CPF solution or more drastic measures. Question will be do you have better solution other than "Don't care about them. Let them die on the streets. These are Idiots !". You know the G nor us will not allow that.

[corydorus]

One thing to add, I believe Singapore is one of the lowest tax country if you do not drive a car.

[Fish Head]

Very good discussion here. We are mostly people who can manage our financial independently. Personally I hope I can get back all my CPF, I believe most of us here can manage it better. But a social system is for majority. The situation is majority of Singaporean will just spend their CPF within months if they can take it back. A simple question is that if your number 1 and 2 largest asset are house and CPF after working at middle level for 30 years or more, very likely you have no ability to manage the half a million CPF if give you in lump sum. A person didn't experience to grow 100 k asset how to manage half a million suddenly. The fact is most of Singaporean especially those making the loudest noise don't have much money beside house and CPF. they may have a car, may know many restaurants, may have some branded bags and full of experience on overseas trip but they just don't have money in their bank or trading account. Now they are thinking to get back their CPF for new car, more trip, more bags and more fine dining. It's irresponsible for government to satisfy them.

[Freenasi]

The leaseback that is offered is not favourable to the owners. It does not take into account of the appreciation of the hdb value in future.

I agree with you that renting out will likely provide the highest cash flow. However, it is simplistic to compare it with leaseback because:
1. You get a lump sum upfront in leaseback
2. The portion of the lease that is sold back is the least valuable part of the property (remember the value goes to ZERO after 99 years?) while the owner still gets to enjoy the property for the next 30 years
3. Appreciation? Why not depreciation? My point is - who knows for sure?

I must say I have faith in our ministers/leader that HDB price will appreciate in mid to long term. It will be wise to study carefully all avenues before anyone sign on the leaseback. Likely those who are well-off and financially educated will not want to take this up. As for the lease of HDB as it approaches 99yrs, there is method to get around this. I think there are complicated network of rules in the gov system, and also many loopholes too. haha

[Contrarian]

> No one should ever blame the government for insufficient funds for retirement.
> It is very much left to the individuals how they plan their life. I would rather the government do less in many areas.

If you are a PAP MP and you say this, all the graduates will cast votes against PAP. Because the price of HDB flat shot up how many times (It costs $99,200 for a bishan 5 room flat in 1980s. Now it costs $650,000 for the same resale flat) before they broke the link between old flat and new flats?

[Damien]

The leaseback that is offered is not favourable to the owners. It does not take into account of the appreciation of the hdb value in future.

I agree with you that renting out will likely provide the highest cash flow. However, it is simplistic to compare it with leaseback because:
1. You get a lump sum upfront in leaseback
2. The portion of the lease that is sold back is the least valuable part of the property (remember the value goes to ZERO after 99 years?) while the owner still gets to enjoy the property for the next 30 years
3. Appreciation? Why not depreciation? My point is - who knows for sure?

I must say I have faith in our ministers/leader that HDB price will appreciate in mid to long term. It will be wise to study carefully all avenues before anyone sign on the leaseback. Likely those who are well-off and financially educated will not want to take this up. As for the lease of HDB as it approaches 99yrs, there is method to get around this. I think there are complicated network of rules in the gov system, and also many loopholes too. haha

The only way property prices are going to increase next is from increased population which is unsustainable in the long term. Look at how the current infrastructure is coping.

If property prices increase, installments to future HDB("cheaper housing") increase but the our earning power do not because of intense competition for jobs. Vicious cycle.

[Big Toe]

> No one should ever blame the government for insufficient funds for retirement.
> It is very much left to the individuals how they plan their life. I would rather the government do less in many areas.

If you are a PAP MP and you say this, all the graduates will cast votes against PAP. Because the price of HDB flat shot up how many times (It costs $99,200 for a bishan 5 room flat in 1980s. Now it costs $650,000 for the same resale flat) before they broke the link between old flat and new flats?

The 2 sentences are taken totally out of context. Read the next few lines and what you are saying is precisely my point. The government has too much control over too many things. And why is that so? The simple reason is that we allow them to and in fact, want them to. One reason for this is because we can't trust ourselves to make sound judgement for ourselves.

If the son, after graduating, is unable to make sensible decisions, unable to get a job and fend for himself. The parents will make if for him. Will decide where he works, take all his money and tells him how to save/spend it. The parent is with good intentions. Like it or not, the son will have to live by whatever rules the parents set until he is sensible enough to think for himself.

[Fish Head]

> No one should ever blame the government for insufficient funds for retirement.
> It is very much left to the individuals how they plan their life. I would rather the government do less in many areas.

If you are a PAP MP and you say this, all the graduates will cast votes against PAP. Because the price of HDB flat shot up how many times (It costs $99,200 for a bishan 5 room flat in 1980s. Now it costs $650,000 for the same resale flat) before they broke the link between old flat and new flats?

The 2 sentences are taken totally out of context. Read the next few lines and what you are saying is precisely my point. The government has too much control over too many things. And why is that so? The simple reason is that we allow them to and in fact, want them to. One reason for this is because we can't trust ourselves to make sound judgement for ourselves.

If the son, after graduating, is unable to make sensible decisions, unable to get a job and fend for himself. The parents will make if for him. Will decide where he works, take all his money and tells him how to save/spend it. The parent is with good intentions. Like it or not, the son will have to live by whatever rules the parents set until he is sensible enough to think for himself.

You are absolutely right for most of us here but not so right for many others outside. Think of it how often you have a friend complaining how bad is our government and how bad is PAP, but his solution for all the problems is started as "government should do....."

[Big Toe]

> No one should ever blame the government for insufficient funds for retirement.
> It is very much left to the individuals how they plan their life. I would rather the government do less in many areas.

If you are a PAP MP and you say this, all the graduates will cast votes against PAP. Because the price of HDB flat shot up how many times (It costs $99,200 for a bishan 5 room flat in 1980s. Now it costs $650,000 for the same resale flat) before they broke the link between old flat and new flats?

The 2 sentences are taken totally out of context. Read the next few lines and what you are saying is precisely my point. The government has too much control over too many things. And why is that so? The simple reason is that we allow them to and in fact, want them to. One reason for this is because we can't trust ourselves to make sound judgement for ourselves.

If the son, after graduating, is unable to make sensible decisions, unable to get a job and fend for himself. The parents will make if for him. Will decide where he works, take all his money and tells him how to save/spend it. The parent is with good intentions. Like it or not, the son will have to live by whatever rules the parents set until he is sensible enough to think for himself.

You are absolutely right for most of us here but not so right for many others outside. Think of it how often you have a friend complaining how bad is our government and how bad is PAP, but his solution for all the problems is started as "government should do....."

Yes, and that's where the problem lies. We should be responsible for our own lives, not the government. While we can voice our concerns that there are too many FTs and there is a real NEED for the immigration policies to be tweaked, we should also look at ourselves how to deal with it. It's a global workforce, outsourcing is common to save cost.

[Temperament]

Even a free-market need a G. Look at what happened to the World (GFC). due to US believes that a free market will self-correcting and self-regulating.
No one owe us a living. But we need the G to correct and regulate the "Free Market" though the invisible hand may works most of the times.