Any Ceiling for contribution of CPF OA?

[teddybear]

minority,

Beating around the bush and trying to LIE again?
When did I ever mention about GST that you drag it in?
Wow! Lots of FAKE NEWS, LIES, and DAMNED LIES from you?

Since you are still around, why you can't answer my questions in response to your LIES?:

1) You said PUB loses $69.3M.
Then you now telling us PUB needs to pay GCF & TAXES for its' losses???? What a JOKE!

2) May be you can tell us which other company in Singapore reported LOSSES in Income and still NEED to pay GCF & TAXES?

Ha ha ha! Caught YOU!

Hey Idiot

Do you know wtf is GST and how GST work?

As long as Net GST collect verses Net GST Paid is positive GST have to be paid.

And having postie GST dont mean you are making a profit.

https://www.iras.gov.sg/irashome/upl...Businesses.pdf

WTF DUMB LIAR YOU ARE....

Wow, minority the BIGGEST LIAR is still around and want to LIE again!!!

Since you are still around, why you can't answer my questions in response to your LIES?:

1) You said PUB loses $69.3M.
Then you now telling us PUB needs to pay GCF & TAXES for its' losses???? What a JOKE!

2) May be you can tell us which other company in Singapore reported LOSSES in Income and still NEED to pay TAXES?

Ha ha ha! Caught YOU!

[star]

Serious, like that I rent then rent out my HDB still got spare cash.

You are right, was told by one of the Condo buyers, he is paying people to stay in his condo.

All places can rent out it depends on how much u wanted. Don't u agree? If u r the cheapest in sg u can always rent out.

[Arcachon]

All places can rent out it depends on how much u wanted. Don't u agree? If u r the cheapest in sg u can always rent out.

Agree, but most would rather leave it empty to collect dust.

[teddybear]

No, not all places can rent out!
Very simple, if there 1M rental properties but only 500k tenants, no matter how much you are willing to accept for rental (even for $0 p.m.), there will still be 500k rental properties that will be vacant..........

And if you rent out for $0 p.m., you will be paying your tenants to live in your properties and also incur additional costs to restore your property to good condition for next tenant etc!

All places can rent out it depends on how much u wanted. Don't u agree? If u r the cheapest in sg u can always rent out.

[star]

No, not all places can rent out!
Very simple, if there 1M rental properties but only 500k tenants, no matter how much you are willing to accept for rental (even for $0 p.m.), there will still be 500k rental properties that will be vacant..........

And if you rent out for $0 p.m., you will be paying your tenants to live in your properties and also incur additional costs to restore your property to good condition for next tenant etc!

Where u get the figures from? How many bought for staying and how many bought for purely rental pls show report to prove your figures. If u r cheapest in your development sure can rent out.

[Laguna]

This is what I will do.

Turn 55 still working, upgrade to the biggest HDB I can afford.

Buy the smallest and cheapest condo.

Stay in condo, rent out HDB.

Are you dreaming to buy HDB flat with your Southbank?
Even you buy HDB resale, there is a 5 years MOP....

[Arcachon]

Are you dreaming to buy HDB flat with your Southbank?
Even you buy HDB resale, there is a 5 years MOP....

Still holding my 5 room HDB at Balam road rent out for 2800.

fully pay by 2020

[Laguna]

Still holding my 5 room HDB at Balam road rent out for 2800.

fully pay by 2020

You have sold one HDB earlier, I supposed that was your first cherry.
Now you have a HDB and SouthBank, and thinking of upgrading to bigger HDB? unless you sell your SouthBank and existing HDB, else you have nothing to talk

[Arcachon]

You have sold one HDB earlier, I supposed that was your first cherry.
Now you have a HDB and SouthBank, and thinking of upgrading to bigger HDB? unless you sell your SouthBank and existing HDB, else you have nothing to talk

Bought another PC @ Terrasse escape ABSD, TDSR.

[minority]

minority,

Beating around the bush and trying to LIE again?
When did I ever mention about GST that you drag it in?
Wow! Lots of FAKE NEWS, LIES, and DAMNED LIES from you?

Since you are still around, why you can't answer my questions in response to your LIES?:

1) You said PUB loses $69.3M.
Then you now telling us PUB needs to pay GCF & TAXES for its' losses???? What a JOKE!

2) May be you can tell us which other company in Singapore reported LOSSES in Income and still NEED to pay GCF & TAXES?

Ha ha ha! Caught YOU!

Dumb ****....


They are positive after gov contribution. Then there are tax. You dumb F**K!. u dont agree that they are negative until government contributed 270M? pls go file a police report and make a complain on the audit! I CHALLENGE U! bloody liar

A check with the statutory board’s Annual Report 2015/16 confirms the numbers.

The Report says:

“The Group recorded a net income after Government Grants and Contribution to GCF and Taxation of S$166.8 million this year (prior year: S$182.4 million). This was 8.6% or S$15.6 million lower than previous year due to increased operating expenses which more than offset the total increase in operating and net non-operating income. The Return on Total Assets (“ROTA”) for the year was 3.0% (prior year: 3.3%).”

GCF refers to the Government Consolidated Fund, which “is analogous to a bank account held by the Government.”

“Subject to any law, the revenues of Singapore are paid into this fund and out of which Government expenditures are made,” the Parliament website says.

In the last financial year, the PUB incurred a loss of $69.3 million before Government Grants, which amounted to $270.4 million.

The grant, as Dr Maliki explained, allowed the PUB to register a profit of $166.8 million, after deducting GCF Contribution and Taxation.

In financial year 2014/15, the amount of Government Grants was slightly higher, at $277 million, which offset the $57.2 million loss, enabling the PUB to register a net income of $182.4 million.

The PUB’s net income is “transferred to Capital Reserve to finance investment in property, plant and equipment.”

And there is the “Government-funded capital expenditure” which came to S$494.4 million in the last financial year. These “were for drainage, used water reticulation network and the Active Beautiful Clean Waters Programme projects belonging to the Government.”

Some have also questioned the increasing Operating Expenses which stood at $1.23 billion, compared to the $1.19 billion the previous year.

The PUB’s Annual Report explains that the difference “was due mainly to higher manpower costs, increased in depreciation expenses, maintenance expenses and research and development expenses.”

The minister of the MEWR, Masagos Zulkifli, had also earlier cited rising costs as a reason for the hike in water prices.

“Rising costs of resources and the use of more complex development approaches have exerted upward pressure on the costs of producing and delivering water,” he wrote.

The “cost of water transmission has increased as Singapore lays deeper pipes in an urbanised environment”, reports the Straits Times.

The Finance Minister, Heng Swee Keat, had said that the increase “will fund the higher costs of desalination and Newater production, as well as that of maintaining Singapore’s current water infrastructure”, as reported by the newspaper.

“PUB expended S$319.9 million (prior year: S$222.3 million) in capital expenditure as part of our continual efforts to replace, improve and expand water and used water infrastructure to cater for future water needs of the nation,” the PUB’s Report says.

[teddybear]

minority,
As you try to spin more LIES to cover up previous LIES, more questions get raised!

Questions, questions, more questions!:

1) They are positive after gov contribution. Then there are tax.

Oh really?
Why gov contribution (akin to shareholders' fund injection) is considered "income" in PUB financial statement?

2) With reference to (1), could you point us to any listed company in Singapore where they include shareholders' fund injection as "income" in their financial statements and then need to pay taxes on these fund injection?

3) And then there is GCF taxes. Could you point us to any listed company in Singapore that needs to contribute to GCF taxes on top of corporate income taxes?

4) Why PUB needs to spend $4 Billions over next 5 years?
Now, according to the news, read here:
http://www.straitstimes.com/politics...t-depreciation
It said that "PUB intends to invest $4 billion on additional water infrastructure in the next five years."

Ok, so Capital Expenditure (CE) is $4B needed over 5 years means they need $800M cash p.a. to cover the expenses.
First Question: why need so much over 5 years?
Don't forget, PUB only has $6.8B of "Property, plant and equipment" on Balance Sheet accumulated over past >50 years (or an average of $136M per year if you assume their expenditure on capital expenditure (which forms the "Property, plant and equipment" on balance sheet) is the same every year over the past 50 years)!
Suddenly they need to spend so much over 5 years, which costs about 58.9% of $6.8M "Property, plant and equipment" that they had accumulated over >50 years?
Like that is seems that they can spaced out the capital expenditure over say 10 years or even 20 years right?

5) PUB has not increased water price for past 17 years, BUT PUB has been making lots of CASH money for past 17 years!

To find out how much CASH PROFIT they made, Let's dig out some FACTs - Look at the Net Operating Cashflow before Working Capital Changes (NCFBWCC) (Note that this is before including the Government Grants!)......

For YE Mar 31 NCFBWCC Gov Grant Total Cash available for CE Total Cash on Balance Sheet
2016 $303.8M $270M $573.8M $830M
2015 $302.2M $277M $579.2M $780M
2014 $292.5M $296M $588.5M $1089M
2013 $300.8M $216M $516.8M $889M
2012 $284.3M $199M
2011 $466.8M $185M
2010 $503.7M $185M
Above You can refer financial reports from here: https://www.pub.gov.sg/annualreports/

You may ask: Why look at "Net Operating Cashflow before Working Capital Changes" and not "Net Income"?
Well, when you ask this question, it obviously shows that you are ignorant about accounting!
Net Income includes deduction for "Capital Expenditure, Amortization etc", which are not real cash expenditure made during that year! They form what is called "Accrual Accounting"!
If you want to know what are the Cash Profits available for spending on additional capital expenditure etc, obviously you look at NCFBWCC, which are the cash they can pocket (without minusing the Capital Expenditure etc which has already been paid/spent YEARS ago using CASH the company previously owned/has in their account!)

So, you can see that PUB has been making HUGE CASH PROFITS (Net Operating Cashflow before Working Capital Changes (NCFBWCC)) over all these years up till 2016 before adding Gov Grants!!!!!!!!!!!!

6) Note that PUB has been making HUGE CASH PROFITS despite paying out money again and again to buy more assets from the government (and depleting its cash hoard). Why don't you point us to their annual report like below (in PUB financial report FY2014):

"On 1 July 2005, PUB took over the used water business and purchased its operating assets (S$1.2 billion) from the Government."

"FY2007: Other Current Assets = S$2,573,070" - "PUB’s prepayment for purchase of Changi Water Reclamation Plant in FY2009."

So, PUB has paid the goverment $3.77 BILLIONS over past 12 years to take over some assets (owned by Government)! (I don't know about how much PUB paid the government for assets before 2005 as I don't have financial data earlier than that).

7) With so much CASH PROFITS, why PUB don't just raise funds through BONDs since they have so much CASH PROFIT to pay bonds' interest?
Even then, PUB could raise funds via issuing bonds and pay interests to finance the capital expenditure, since don't forget, they are earning ~$300M in CASH every year! Why they need to pocket so much CASH?
Even then, with Gov Grant, they have >$570M every year to spend on capital expenditure!

Now, assuming that water prices increases by 30% by 2018, what will their cash profits be? We should be able to make an educated estimate:

For YE Mar 31 Revenue NCFBWCC
2016 $1,201M $303.8M
Additional revenue of $360.3 will fall to cash profits.
So, now PUB will earn say:
2018 $1,561.3M $664.1M

Now, after 5 years, when the capital expenditure needed has been spent, PUB will still continue to earn about $664.1M of CASH profit! So what is PUB going to do with their HUGE CASH PROFIT?
Are they going to return these money back to the Singaporeans?
What say you?
If not, is there a real need to rise water prices?
Well, NOT WHEN PUB is still MAKING SO MUCH CASH PROFIT (before Gov Grant) right?!

Or they can raise all these money through bonds, since for YE 2016 Mar 31, PUB only has total debt to equity ratio = (2796M) / (5145M) = 54%!

If you look at other big companies, e.g. Olam (majority controlled by Temasek):
Olam in FY2016 has total debt to equity ratio = (17,835M) / (5,634M) = 317%!

Now, if PUB raises their total debt level to 317% (like Olam), they would be able to borrow additional = $(3.17*7941M) - (2796M) = $22,377M, i.e. they can easily sells BONDS up to $22.38 BILLIONS!
Hei, if you add in the cash, that is MUCH MUCH MORE THAN the $4 BILLIONS capital expenditure money needed by PUB over next 5 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!


8) So, What is PUB going to do with HUGE CASH PROFIT of $664.1M per annum they are earning 5 years later when they have no need to spend so much CAPITAL EXPENDITURE any more?

9) Why should raising awareness of preciousness of water and encouraging water conservation and efficiency become an excuse for PUB to earn even more PROFITS from Singaporeans (akin to "milking" Singaporeans)?

10) So honestly, are they going to cut water prices and return the HUGE CASH PROFITS to Singaporeans or they are going to keep them 5 years later?

Ha ha ha! Caught YOU again!

Dumb ****....

They are positive after gov contribution. Then there are tax. You dumb F**K!. u dont agree that they are negative until government contributed 270M? pls go file a police report and make a complain on the audit! I CHALLENGE U! bloody liar

A check with the statutory board’s Annual Report 2015/16 confirms the numbers.

The Report says:

“The Group recorded a net income after Government Grants and Contribution to GCF and Taxation of S$166.8 million this year (prior year: S$182.4 million). This was 8.6% or S$15.6 million lower than previous year due to increased operating expenses which more than offset the total increase in operating and net non-operating income. The Return on Total Assets (“ROTA”) for the year was 3.0% (prior year: 3.3%).”

GCF refers to the Government Consolidated Fund, which “is analogous to a bank account held by the Government.”

“Subject to any law, the revenues of Singapore are paid into this fund and out of which Government expenditures are made,” the Parliament website says.

In the last financial year, the PUB incurred a loss of $69.3 million before Government Grants, which amounted to $270.4 million.

The grant, as Dr Maliki explained, allowed the PUB to register a profit of $166.8 million, after deducting GCF Contribution and Taxation.

In financial year 2014/15, the amount of Government Grants was slightly higher, at $277 million, which offset the $57.2 million loss, enabling the PUB to register a net income of $182.4 million.

The PUB’s net income is “transferred to Capital Reserve to finance investment in property, plant and equipment.”

And there is the “Government-funded capital expenditure” which came to S$494.4 million in the last financial year. These “were for drainage, used water reticulation network and the Active Beautiful Clean Waters Programme projects belonging to the Government.”

Some have also questioned the increasing Operating Expenses which stood at $1.23 billion, compared to the $1.19 billion the previous year.

The PUB’s Annual Report explains that the difference “was due mainly to higher manpower costs, increased in depreciation expenses, maintenance expenses and research and development expenses.”

The minister of the MEWR, Masagos Zulkifli, had also earlier cited rising costs as a reason for the hike in water prices.

“Rising costs of resources and the use of more complex development approaches have exerted upward pressure on the costs of producing and delivering water,” he wrote.

The “cost of water transmission has increased as Singapore lays deeper pipes in an urbanised environment”, reports the Straits Times.

The Finance Minister, Heng Swee Keat, had said that the increase “will fund the higher costs of desalination and Newater production, as well as that of maintaining Singapore’s current water infrastructure”, as reported by the newspaper.

“PUB expended S$319.9 million (prior year: S$222.3 million) in capital expenditure as part of our continual efforts to replace, improve and expand water and used water infrastructure to cater for future water needs of the nation,” the PUB’s Report says.

minority,

Beating around the bush and trying to LIE again?
When did I ever mention about GST that you drag it in?
Wow! Lots of FAKE NEWS, LIES, and DAMNED LIES from you?

Since you are still around, why you can't answer my questions in response to your LIES?:

1) You said PUB loses $69.3M.
Then you now telling us PUB needs to pay GCF & TAXES for its' losses???? What a JOKE!

2) May be you can tell us which other company in Singapore reported LOSSES in Income and still NEED to pay GCF & TAXES?

Ha ha ha! Caught YOU!

[minority]

minority,
As you try to spin more LIES to cover up previous LIES, more questions get raised!

Questions, questions, more questions!:

1) They are positive after gov contribution. Then there are tax.

Oh really?
Why gov contribution (akin to shareholders' fund injection) is considered "income" in PUB financial statement?

2) With reference to (1), could you point us to any listed company in Singapore where they include shareholders' fund injection as "income" in their financial statements and then need to pay taxes on these fund injection?

3) And then there is GCF taxes. Could you point us to any listed company in Singapore that needs to contribute to GCF taxes on top of corporate income taxes?

4) Why PUB needs to spend $4 Billions over next 5 years?
Now, according to the news, read here:
http://www.straitstimes.com/politics...t-depreciation
It said that "PUB intends to invest $4 billion on additional water infrastructure in the next five years."

Ok, so Capital Expenditure (CE) is $4B needed over 5 years means they need $800M cash p.a. to cover the expenses.
First Question: why need so much over 5 years?
Don't forget, PUB only has $6.8B of "Property, plant and equipment" on Balance Sheet accumulated over past >50 years (or an average of $136M per year if you assume their expenditure on capital expenditure (which forms the "Property, plant and equipment" on balance sheet) is the same every year over the past 50 years)!
Suddenly they need to spend so much over 5 years, which costs about 58.9% of $6.8M "Property, plant and equipment" that they had accumulated over >50 years?
Like that is seems that they can spaced out the capital expenditure over say 10 years or even 20 years right?

5) PUB has not increased water price for past 17 years, BUT PUB has been making lots of CASH money for past 17 years!

To find out how much CASH PROFIT they made, Let's dig out some FACTs - Look at the Net Operating Cashflow before Working Capital Changes (NCFBWCC) (Note that this is before including the Government Grants!)......

For YE Mar 31 NCFBWCC Gov Grant Total Cash available for CE Total Cash on Balance Sheet
2016 $303.8M $270M $573.8M $830M
2015 $302.2M $277M $579.2M $780M
2014 $292.5M $296M $588.5M $1089M
2013 $300.8M $216M $516.8M $889M
2012 $284.3M $199M
2011 $466.8M $185M
2010 $503.7M $185M
Above You can refer financial reports from here: https://www.pub.gov.sg/annualreports/

You may ask: Why look at "Net Operating Cashflow before Working Capital Changes" and not "Net Income"?
Well, when you ask this question, it obviously shows that you are ignorant about accounting!
Net Income includes deduction for "Capital Expenditure, Amortization etc", which are not real cash expenditure made during that year! They form what is called "Accrual Accounting"!
If you want to know what are the Cash Profits available for spending on additional capital expenditure etc, obviously you look at NCFBWCC, which are the cash they can pocket (without minusing the Capital Expenditure etc which has already been paid/spent YEARS ago using CASH the company previously owned/has in their account!)

So, you can see that PUB has been making HUGE CASH PROFITS (Net Operating Cashflow before Working Capital Changes (NCFBWCC)) over all these years up till 2016 before adding Gov Grants!!!!!!!!!!!!

6) Note that PUB has been making HUGE CASH PROFITS despite paying out money again and again to buy more assets from the government (and depleting its cash hoard). Why don't you point us to their annual report like below (in PUB financial report FY2014):

"On 1 July 2005, PUB took over the used water business and purchased its operating assets (S$1.2 billion) from the Government."

"FY2007: Other Current Assets = S$2,573,070" - "PUB’s prepayment for purchase of Changi Water Reclamation Plant in FY2009."

So, PUB has paid the goverment $3.77 BILLIONS over past 12 years to take over some assets (owned by Government)! (I don't know about how much PUB paid the government for assets before 2005 as I don't have financial data earlier than that).

7) With so much CASH PROFITS, why PUB don't just raise funds through BONDs since they have so much CASH PROFIT to pay bonds' interest?
Even then, PUB could raise funds via issuing bonds and pay interests to finance the capital expenditure, since don't forget, they are earning ~$300M in CASH every year! Why they need to pocket so much CASH?
Even then, with Gov Grant, they have >$570M every year to spend on capital expenditure!

Now, assuming that water prices increases by 30% by 2018, what will their cash profits be? We should be able to make an educated estimate:

For YE Mar 31 Revenue NCFBWCC
2016 $1,201M $303.8M
Additional revenue of $360.3 will fall to cash profits.
So, now PUB will earn say:
2018 $1,561.3M $664.1M

Now, after 5 years, when the capital expenditure needed has been spent, PUB will still continue to earn about $664.1M of CASH profit! So what is PUB going to do with their HUGE CASH PROFIT?
Are they going to return these money back to the Singaporeans?
What say you?
If not, is there a real need to rise water prices?
Well, NOT WHEN PUB is still MAKING SO MUCH CASH PROFIT (before Gov Grant) right?!

Or they can raise all these money through bonds, since for YE 2016 Mar 31, PUB only has total debt to equity ratio = (2796M) / (5145M) = 54%!

If you look at other big companies, e.g. Olam (majority controlled by Temasek):
Olam in FY2016 has total debt to equity ratio = (17,835M) / (5,634M) = 317%!

Now, if PUB raises their total debt level to 317% (like Olam), they would be able to borrow additional = $(3.17*7941M) - (2796M) = $22,377M, i.e. they can easily sells BONDS up to $22.38 BILLIONS!
Hei, if you add in the cash, that is MUCH MUCH MORE THAN the $4 BILLIONS capital expenditure money needed by PUB over next 5 years!!!!!!!!!!!!!


8) So, What is PUB going to do with HUGE CASH PROFIT of $664.1M per annum they are earning 5 years later when they have no need to spend so much CAPITAL EXPENDITURE any more?

9) Why should raising awareness of preciousness of water and encouraging water conservation and efficiency become an excuse for PUB to earn even more PROFITS from Singaporeans (akin to "milking" Singaporeans)?

10) So honestly, are they going to cut water prices and return the HUGE CASH PROFITS to Singaporeans or they are going to keep them 5 years later?

Ha ha ha! Caught YOU again!

OH HOW IS INJECTION INTO A COMPANY NOT BE CONSIDERED INCOME? DIDN'T THE BOOKS END UP POSITIVE AFTER??? SHOW ME IN IRAS SAY GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTION ARE NOT TAXABLE?? SHOW ME!!! PROVE ME WRONG!


SO A F**K LIKE YOU RUN COMPANIES

COMPANY A NEGATIVE GET A CONTRIBUTION FROM COMPANY B AND A END THE BOOKS POSITIVE! SO SHOULD HAVE NO TAX!!!???? WTF LOGIC??? COZ BOOKS WAS POSITIVE BEFORE INJECTION???

AND COMPANY B WAS POSITIVE BUT AFTER THAT CONTRIBUTION TO A BECOME NEGATIVE??? SO NO TAX FOR COMPANY B TOO?????

DONT COME F**K LIE LAH.

FACT IS BOOKS WAS POSITIVE AFTER CONTRIBUTION THUS TAX ARE PAID!

SO DONT COME TWIST THE FACT THAT PUB WAS NEGATIVE BEFORE GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTION!!!

COME COME U DONT AGREE I CHALLENGE U GO MAKE A POLICE REPORT ON CORPORATE FRAUD!!!! GO!!! SHOW US LEH!!!!


BLOODY LIAR!!!!

[teddybear]

minority,

More bullshit from you? Ha ha ha!

If capital injection must be included as revenue/profit, then why Olam put "Capital Injection" as an item in "Cash flows from investing activities"?

You can see the FACTS here in Page 19:
http://49tmko49h46b4e0czy3rlqaye1b.w...eport_FY16.pdf

So, if based on what you said, capital injection must be included as revenue/profit, then are you telling us that Olam is then trying to avoid income taxes by putting "capital injection $" as "Cash flows from investing activities"?

You claimed that:

SHOW ME IN IRAS SAY GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTION ARE NOT TAXABLE?? SHOW ME!!! PROVE ME WRONG!
...
COMPANY A NEGATIVE GET A CONTRIBUTION FROM COMPANY B AND A END THE BOOKS POSITIVE! SO SHOULD HAVE NO TAX!!!???? WTF LOGIC???


Based on what you claimed, Olam should have reflected the "capital injection $" into revenue/profit in Income Statement and pay the corporate income taxes for this amount! By putting "capital injection $" in "Cash flows from investing activities", Olam has avoided paying corporate income taxes for this amount!

So minority, are you accusing Olam of trying rig its book to avoid paying income taxes (and considering that Olam if majority-controlled by Temasek!)????????

minority,
Don't come here to bullshit to malign Olam and Temasek ok?!

OH HOW IS INJECTION INTO A COMPANY NOT BE CONSIDERED INCOME? DIDN'T THE BOOKS END UP POSITIVE AFTER??? SHOW ME IN IRAS SAY GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTION ARE NOT TAXABLE?? SHOW ME!!! PROVE ME WRONG!


SO A F**K LIKE YOU RUN COMPANIES

COMPANY A NEGATIVE GET A CONTRIBUTION FROM COMPANY B AND A END THE BOOKS POSITIVE! SO SHOULD HAVE NO TAX!!!???? WTF LOGIC??? COZ BOOKS WAS POSITIVE BEFORE INJECTION???

AND COMPANY B WAS POSITIVE BUT AFTER THAT CONTRIBUTION TO A BECOME NEGATIVE??? SO NO TAX FOR COMPANY B TOO?????

DONT COME F**K LIE LAH.

FACT IS BOOKS WAS POSITIVE AFTER CONTRIBUTION THUS TAX ARE PAID!

SO DONT COME TWIST THE FACT THAT PUB WAS NEGATIVE BEFORE GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTION!!!

COME COME U DONT AGREE I CHALLENGE U GO MAKE A POLICE REPORT ON CORPORATE FRAUD!!!! GO!!! SHOW US LEH!!!!


BLOODY LIAR!!!!

[minority]

minority,

More bullshit from you? Ha ha ha!

If capital injection must be included as revenue/profit, then why Olam put "Capital Injection" as an item in "Cash flows from investing activities"?

You can see the FACTS here in Page 19:
http://49tmko49h46b4e0czy3rlqaye1b.w...eport_FY16.pdf

So, if based on what you said, capital injection must be included as revenue/profit, then are you telling us that Olam is then trying to avoid income taxes by putting "capital injection $" as "Cash flows from investing activities"?

You claimed that:

SHOW ME IN IRAS SAY GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTION ARE NOT TAXABLE?? SHOW ME!!! PROVE ME WRONG!
...
COMPANY A NEGATIVE GET A CONTRIBUTION FROM COMPANY B AND A END THE BOOKS POSITIVE! SO SHOULD HAVE NO TAX!!!???? WTF LOGIC???


Based on what you claimed, Olam should have reflected the "capital injection $" into revenue/profit in Income Statement and pay the corporate income taxes for this amount! By putting "capital injection $" in "Cash flows from investing activities", Olam has avoided paying corporate income taxes for this amount!

So minority, are you accusing Olam of trying rig its book to avoid paying income taxes (and considering that Olam if majority-controlled by Temasek!)????????

minority,
Don't come here to bullshit to malign Olam and Temasek ok?!

AND OLAM DIDNT PAY TAX FOR TOTAL INCOME??? COME SHOW US LEH!!!!


I ASKING U AND CHALLENGE U!! MAKE A POLICE REPORT THERE IS FRAUD LEH!!! WHAT ARE YOU WAITING??? LAIR!!!

[teddybear]

minority,
Twist and turn again like 2-headed snake?

FACT is, Olam DIDN'T PAY ANY TAX on the "Capital Injection $" amount!

So, why should PUB pay ANY TAX on "Government Capital Injection $"?

So, who is WRONG, PUB or Olam?
Either Olam is avoiding taxes or PUB is paying additional unnecessary taxes?

Which is true?

I would say PUB is paying additional unnecessary taxes while Olam is perfectly clean!

If you disagree with me, that means you are telling us that Olam is WRONG and had avoided taxes by rigging its book?

AND OLAM DIDNT PAY TAX FOR TOTAL INCOME??? COME SHOW US LEH!!!!


I ASKING U AND CHALLENGE U!! MAKE A POLICE REPORT THERE IS FRAUD LEH!!! WHAT ARE YOU WAITING??? LAIR!!!

minority,

More bullshit from you? Ha ha ha!

If capital injection must be included as revenue/profit, then why Olam put "Capital Injection" as an item in "Cash flows from investing activities"?

You can see the FACTS here in Page 19:
http://49tmko49h46b4e0czy3rlqaye1b.w...eport_FY16.pdf

So, if based on what you said, capital injection must be included as revenue/profit, then are you telling us that Olam is then trying to avoid income taxes by putting "capital injection $" as "Cash flows from investing activities"?

You claimed that:

SHOW ME IN IRAS SAY GOVERNMENT CONTRIBUTION ARE NOT TAXABLE?? SHOW ME!!! PROVE ME WRONG!
...
COMPANY A NEGATIVE GET A CONTRIBUTION FROM COMPANY B AND A END THE BOOKS POSITIVE! SO SHOULD HAVE NO TAX!!!???? WTF LOGIC???


Based on what you claimed, Olam should have reflected the "capital injection $" into revenue/profit in Income Statement and pay the corporate income taxes for this amount! By putting "capital injection $" in "Cash flows from investing activities", Olam has avoided paying corporate income taxes for this amount!

So minority, are you accusing Olam of trying rig its book to avoid paying income taxes (and considering that Olam if majority-controlled by Temasek!)????????

minority,
Don't come here to bullshit to malign Olam and Temasek ok?!

[teddybear]

looks like my question is so difficult that minority cannot answer?!

Very simple, because minority is LYING and BULLSHITTING, and regardless of whether he answer either YES or NO he also needs to EAT SHIT!

minority,
Twist and turn again like 2-headed snake?

FACT is, Olam DIDN'T PAY ANY TAX on the "Capital Injection $" amount!

So, why should PUB pay ANY TAX on "Government Capital Injection $"?

So, who is WRONG, PUB or Olam?
Either Olam is avoiding taxes or PUB is paying additional unnecessary taxes?

Which is true?

I would say PUB is paying additional unnecessary taxes while Olam is perfectly clean!

If you disagree with me, that means you are telling us that Olam is WRONG and had avoided taxes by rigging its book?

[cbsh38584]

CPF is more than enough for retirement Planning if you manage it wisely - Starting pay $2500 @age25
=============================================================================
There are 3 type of min retirement sum as from 2016 Figure.

2016 retirement sum figure for BRS (80.5k) , FRS ($161k) & ERS ($241k)
2020 retirement sum figure for BRS (90.5k) , FRS ($181k) & ERS ($271k) inflation est 2.5%

1. Basic Retirement Sum(BRS) = $80.5k with 2/3/4 rm HDB pledged
Monthly payout for life@65 = $660-$720

2. Full Retirement Sum (FRS) = $161k (No 2/3/4 rm HDB pledged)
Monthly payout for life@65 = $1220-$1320

3.Enhanced Retirement Sum (ERS) = $241,500
Those who wish to put more saving in CPF life - optional
Monthly payout for life@65 = $1770-$1920.

Max contribution to your CPF for 2015 = $31.45k / yr (20% of your Salary + 17% employer + voluntary cash)
Max contribution to your CPF for 2016 = $37.75k / yr (20% of your Salary + 17% employer + voluntary cash)


Many of them are unaware of how their annual income + CPF adds up over 30 years of working (age 25 to age 55).

Starting pay $2500 (3% Salary increment yearly till age 55).Do nothing to your CPF acct
==================================================================
At age 25 - OA=$7.1k. SA=$1.9k MA=$2.5k

By age 35, OA=$112k. SA=33k. MA=41k

By age 45 - OA=$268k. SA=120k. MA=97k

By age 55 - OA=$479k. SA=354k. MA = $138k

** When MA (now call BHS) ceiling is reached ($49.8k) Excess goes to SA. But if SA (4%) min FRS ($161k) is also reached. MA (4%) excess goes to OA (2.5%)

NET CASH Income (take home pay) earned accumulated for 30 years of working (age 25 to age 55)= $1.3 million dollars very very more than enough
for the HDB BTO 4rm HDB flat $350k (income >$8k no HDB grant) . I did not include variable or performance bonus which range from 0.5 mth to 3 mths
& also your partner income whic may be also $1.3m if she/he has the same earning power.

If you have the job stability & the financial capablilty . Consider on How To Manage Your CPF Money by Shift all your money from Ordinary Acct to Special Acct as
YOUNG as possible. You will get extra >60k to 100k more with no sweat involved at all.Just transfering OA-SA every Year . It MUST BE DONE when you are young.


Shift CPF-OA (2.5%-3.5%) to SA (4-5%) at YOUNG age & start to transfer OA (2.5% to SA(4%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At age 25 - OA=$7.1k. SA=$1.9k. MA=$2.5k.

By age 35, OA=0 (vs 112k). SA=156k (vs 33k) . MA=41k

By 45 - OA=$85k.(vs 268k) SA=347k (vs 120k). MA=93k

By 55 - OA=$341k (vs$479k) @SA=$550k to 600k. (vs $354k). @MA=$100k - 135k

@ SA=550k to $600k depend on the CPF board yearly adjustment of the min sum retirement % increment. Range from 2.5% to 3.5%.

@ MA= $100k to $135k also depend on the CPF board yearly adjustment on the MA & your medishield life selection from Govt b2 to private A class
MA (now call BHS) ceiling is reached. MA Excess goes to SA. But if SA min sum is also reached. MA excess goes to OA

Remember, you are not voluntary CASH contribution in the CPF. Just only your 20% of your Salary + 17% from your employer.

================================================================================================================
I believe only the minorities have the financial capablity , determination & discipline to prorities their retirement need when young & transfer from OA
to SA to see the magic of compouned interest in their special acct. Young prefer WANTS 1st & ignore the NEEDS. if they mismanage the CASH & CPF,
they will be in trouble when they grow old. Low cash & low CPF.

I do not recommend to voluntary contribute cash into CPF when young unless you really have more more than enough cash either from your parent or you yourself.
Maybe when your reach late 40s & your children are age 21 & start working . You have extra cash. Can consider voluntary cash into CPF if min sum is met.
By age 55, you can withdraw all after meeting the min sum (161k). Eg OA=200k SA=201k MA=49.8k(cannot touch). U can withdraw all OA=200k + SA=40k
(201k minus 161k) if you chose FRS ($161k).


Since most of the young couple likely to marry late between age 30-40. Why not set yourself a tgt to hit your Special acct min $100k at age 35
(By age 35, OA=$112k. SA=33k --- Move 67k from your OA to SA (33k + 67k ) to increase your SA to 100k tgt.


Once your SA=100k is reached by age 35. You know that the BIG WORRY min retirement need is SETTLED & can concentrate to build your OA .
Any extra contribution to your SA is extra extra bonus.



$100k compounded 4% interest for 30 yrs. U will have at least 325k at age 65. A very basic retirement est 2.5k/mth at age 65 for life.
http://www.moneychimp.com/calculator...calculator.htm



FYI, those wiives who decided to become a homemaker to take care of children & self employed . You better start to think now about your retirement as you have much lesser CPF for retirement. A umarried man or women. You are also need to plan early as MAID is the only person which you need to depend on when you grow old.

One of the way ticket to retirement - CPF
Plan ahead now. It is better late then never.

[Hakuho]

Leong Sze Hian’s line of argument is so obviously flawed that only the clueless would embrace.

It is sad that Vic’s elegant solution had been overwhelmed with all the crappy posts of one. Hopefully, it is overwhelmed but not forgotten.

[teddybear]

What Leong Sze Hian's line of argument is so obviously flawed?

About his asking why CPF interest rate, particularly for CPF Ordinary Account, is simply too low?
Well, this is a FACT and something many people agreed with him!

LSZ has also shown how people are being short-changed from CPF Life because while it appears that CPF Life members get 4% p.a. interest from 55 to 65 years old, he also proved that therefter CPF Life members get 0% to negative interest rate on their CPF Life money if they can't live past 80 years old!

People who disagree should show FACTs to disprove what LSZ said, and not just to malign him with words of mouth, talk only............

Leong Sze Hian’s line of argument is so obviously flawed that only the clueless would embrace.

It is sad that Vic’s elegant solution had been overwhelmed with all the crappy posts of one. Hopefully, it is overwhelmed but not forgotten.

[Hakuho]

CPF Life, bequest is $0 at the age of 80, but monthly payout continues until the individual’s death.

The total monthly payouts at the death of 80, is about equal to the vested sum of $244 k at the age of 65, so where is the short-change ?

What zero or negative returns you are talking about. You mean you can still demand a returns (presumably in the form of bequest) having fully ‘consumed’ the vested sum beyond the age of 80 ?

The proper comparison is, whether CPF Life as an annuity scheme is better or worse than those provided commercially. Never mind that CPF Life is compulsory for members.

So in your case who is able to live until 10,000-years old as you have repeatedly claimed you could, the returns of your CPF Life should be 1 mil % or more, so what's the problem.

And are you able to argue using your original thoughts without relying on LSH’s or others etc ?

If I want to debate with LSH, I will just go to LSH directly and not here.

Also, arguing about the interest rate of OA here is pointless. Please consult the government, or be the government.

[teddybear]

After reading your long winded post, you still haven't answer the claim you made in your previous post:
What Leong Sze Hian's line of argument is so obviously flawed?


You are the one who started on claiming that: Leong Sze Hian's line of argument is so obviously flawed!

And then you go a big round beating around the bush?

LSZ has also shown how people are being short-changed from CPF Life because while it appears that CPF Life members get 4% p.a. interest from 55 to 65 years old, he also proved that therefter CPF Life members get 0% to negative interest rate on their CPF Life money if they can't live past 80 years old!
Since you dispute his calculation, can you show your calculations (including all figures used) in details instead of just mouthing without any calculations to back your claim?

You claimed that:
"The total monthly payouts at the death of 80, is about equal to the vested sum of $244 k at the age of 65, so where is the short-change ?"
Well, so you are NOW ADMITTING that CPF Life members put in $244k at age 65 to become FREE MONEY for CPF to invest and earn money while giving the member NOTHING in return (until they die at 80 years old)?
By revealing this, isn't you supporting LSZ's statement that you GET NOTHING ($0) after 65 years old for your whole $244k you leave with CPF? Wow! This a FACT that is so REVEALING!!!!!!!!!!

As for LSZ his asking why CPF interest rate, particularly for CPF Ordinary Account, is simply too low? , this is also supported by Professor Lim Chong Yah in his article:
“Singapore should have minimum wage, says economist Lim Chong Yah” (Channel NewsAsia, Jun 10).
You can read about it here too:
https://leongszehian.com/?p=15582

The below paragraphs are particularly interesting, where Professor Lim Chong Yah revealed that:

Comment: The CPF Ordinary Account interest rate is simply too low – the lowest real rate of return of all national pension funds in the world, since 1999

Lim: Yes, I couldn’t understand it myself. Why one minister rung me up and said it’s better not to publish the report. I couldn’t understand.

But there was a call from MOE suggesting that we should not publish. Up to today, I do not know the reason, nobody told us the reason. I suspected there were things on which they didn’t agree with me.

Lim: I don’t know. I am an academic living in a democratic society. In a democratic society, I strongly believe that we should have some room for responsible differences of view, responsible discussions on subjects that the country faces.

So I just exercised my responsibility by publishing anyway. It doesn’t mean that whatever you say, whatever you wish, should become policy. I think that is fallacious thinking. You express your views. That doesn’t necessarily mean that that must be the view by the Government.

CPF Life, bequest is $0 at the age of 80, but monthly payout continues until the individual’s death.

The total monthly payouts at the death of 80, is about equal to the vested sum of $244 k at the age of 65, so where is the short-change ?

What zero or negative returns you are talking about. You mean you can still demand a returns (presumably in the form of bequest) having fully ‘consumed’ the vested sum beyond the age of 80 ?

The proper comparison is, whether CPF Life as an annuity scheme is better or worse than those provided commercially. Never mind that CPF Life is compulsory for members.

So in your case who is able to live until 10,000-years old as you have repeatedly claimed you could, the returns of your CPF Life should be 1 mil % or more, so what's the problem.

And are you able to argue using your original thoughts without relying on LSH’s or others etc ?

If I want to debate with LSH, I will just go to LSH directly and not here.

Also, arguing about the interest rate of OA here is pointless. Please consult the government, or be the government.

What Leong Sze Hian's line of argument is so obviously flawed?

About his asking why CPF interest rate, particularly for CPF Ordinary Account, is simply too low?
Well, this is a FACT and something many people agreed with him!

LSZ has also shown how people are being short-changed from CPF Life because while it appears that CPF Life members get 4% p.a. interest from 55 to 65 years old, he also proved that therefter CPF Life members get 0% to negative interest rate on their CPF Life money if they can't live past 80 years old!

People who disagree should show FACTs to disprove what LSZ said, and not just to malign him with words of mouth, talk only............

[teddybear]

Also, You claimed that:
"The total monthly payouts at the death of 80, is about equal to the vested sum of $244 k at the age of 65, so where is the short-change ?"

Well, so you are NOW ADMITTING that CPF Life members put in $244k at age 65 to become FREE MONEY for CPF to invest and earn money while giving the member NOTHING in return (until they die at 80 years old)?
By revealing this, isn't you supporting LSZ's statement that you GET NOTHING ($0) after 65 years old for your whole $244k you leave with CPF? Wow! This a FACT that is so REVEALING!!!!!!!!!!

And by the way, $1300 pm x 12 mths x 15 years = $234k.
So CPF Life members (MALE) lost $10k if they die at age 80, after putting their $244k with CPF at 65 years old and considering that CPF Life didn't even pay a SINGLE CENT of interest to him! That is REAL NEGATIVE RETURN! Wow! FACTs exposed!

CPF Life, bequest is $0 at the age of 80, but monthly payout continues until the individual’s death.

The total monthly payouts at the death of 80, is about equal to the vested sum of $244 k at the age of 65, so where is the short-change ?

What zero or negative returns you are talking about. You mean you can still demand a returns (presumably in the form of bequest) having fully ‘consumed’ the vested sum beyond the age of 80 ?

The proper comparison is, whether CPF Life as an annuity scheme is better or worse than those provided commercially. Never mind that CPF Life is compulsory for members.

So in your case who is able to live until 10,000-years old as you have repeatedly claimed you could, the returns of your CPF Life should be 1 mil % or more, so what's the problem.

And are you able to argue using your original thoughts without relying on LSH’s or others etc ?

If I want to debate with LSH, I will just go to LSH directly and not here.

Also, arguing about the interest rate of OA here is pointless. Please consult the government, or be the government.

What Leong Sze Hian's line of argument is so obviously flawed?

About his asking why CPF interest rate, particularly for CPF Ordinary Account, is simply too low?
Well, this is a FACT and something many people agreed with him!

LSZ has also shown how people are being short-changed from CPF Life because while it appears that CPF Life members get 4% p.a. interest from 55 to 65 years old, he also proved that therefter CPF Life members get 0% to negative interest rate on their CPF Life money if they can't live past 80 years old!

People who disagree should show FACTs to disprove what LSZ said, and not just to malign him with words of mouth, talk only............

[Kelonguni]

Just some impression: 244K seems to be enhanced sum rather the basic or the full retirement sums.

The full scheme (166K in 2017) pays about 1,300+- per month.

The enhanced scheme pays (249K in 2017) about 1,900+- each month.

Basic scheme operates at about half of the full scheme.

https://www.cpf.gov.sg/Assets/member...entPayouts.pdf

[teddybear]

Think you have got all confused, that goes to show that many people are still totally ignorant about CPF Life!

You may want to go back and read Hakuho's statement again:
The total monthly payouts at the death of 80, is about equal to the vested sum of $244 k at the age of 65, so where is the short-change ?


It is clear he is referring to the "sum of $244k at the age of 65".

Actually, "$244k" is under-stating the real figure because if you go and use the calculator here:
http://make-money-secrets.blogspot.s...payreturn.html

You get:

Description Data Entry
CPF Life Amount at 55 years old ($)
161000
Age you expected to live until in (Years)
80
CPF Life desired return you would like (%)
4
Bequest you want to leave behind ($)
0
CPF Life Amount at 65 years old Calculated
251357.11
CPF Life payout at desired return Calculated
1859.26

So, if you put $161k into Retirement Account at age 55 earning you 5% return for 1st $60k and 4% for the remaining, you should get $251.35k at age 65!
And $161k is the CPF Min Sum at that time (till the recent increases to $166k with effect from 1 Jan 2017).

For CPF Min Sum of $161k at age 55, a male will get paid about $1300 pm ($1200 pm for female).
So if the male lives till 80 years (from 65), he will get paid total = $1300 x 12 x 15 = $234k.
That means, even if CPF pay $0 interest to this man from 65 years old onwards on his principle sum of $251.35k, and he died at Age 80, he lost = $251.35k - $234k = $17.34k!
The lost is even bigger if interest of 4% p.a. is included!
You must remember that Bequest for male at Age 80 = $0 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

if you put $166k into Retirement Account at age 55 earning you 5% return for 1st $60k and 4% for the remaining, you should get $258.81k at age 65!

Just some impression: 244K seems to be enhanced sum rather the basic or the full retirement sums.

The full scheme (166K in 2017) pays about 1,300+- per month.

The enhanced scheme pays (249K in 2017) about 1,900+- each month.

Basic scheme operates at about half of the full scheme.

https://www.cpf.gov.sg/Assets/member...entPayouts.pdf

CPF Life, bequest is $0 at the age of 80, but monthly payout continues until the individual’s death.

The total monthly payouts at the death of 80, is about equal to the vested sum of $244 k at the age of 65, so where is the short-change ?

What zero or negative returns you are talking about. You mean you can still demand a returns (presumably in the form of bequest) having fully ‘consumed’ the vested sum beyond the age of 80 ?

The proper comparison is, whether CPF Life as an annuity scheme is better or worse than those provided commercially. Never mind that CPF Life is compulsory for members.

So in your case who is able to live until 10,000-years old as you have repeatedly claimed you could, the returns of your CPF Life should be 1 mil % or more, so what's the problem.

And are you able to argue using your original thoughts without relying on LSH’s or others etc ?

If I want to debate with LSH, I will just go to LSH directly and not here.

Also, arguing about the interest rate of OA here is pointless. Please consult the government, or be the government.

[minority]

Think you have got all confused, that goes to show that many people are still totally ignorant about CPF Life!

You may want to go back and read Hakuho's statement again:
The total monthly payouts at the death of 80, is about equal to the vested sum of $244 k at the age of 65, so where is the short-change ?


It is clear he is referring to the "sum of $244k at the age of 65".

Actually, "$244k" is under-stating the real figure because if you go and use the calculator here:
http://make-money-secrets.blogspot.s...payreturn.html

You get:

Description Data Entry
CPF Life Amount at 55 years old ($)
161000
Age you expected to live until in (Years)
80
CPF Life desired return you would like (%)
4
Bequest you want to leave behind ($)
0
CPF Life Amount at 65 years old Calculated
251357.11
CPF Life payout at desired return Calculated
1859.26

So, if you put $161k into Retirement Account at age 55 earning you 5% return for 1st $60k and 4% for the remaining, you should get $251.35k at age 65!
And $161k is the CPF Min Sum at that time (till the recent increases to $166k with effect from 1 Jan 2017).

For CPF Min Sum of $161k at age 55, a male will get paid about $1300 pm ($1200 pm for female).
So if the male lives till 80 years (from 65), he will get paid total = $1300 x 12 x 15 = $234k.
That means, even if CPF pay $0 interest to this man from 65 years old onwards on his principle sum of $251.35k, and he died at Age 80, he lost = $251.35k - $234k = $17.34k!
The lost is even bigger if interest of 4% p.a. is included!
You must remember that Bequest for male at Age 80 = $0 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

if you put $166k into Retirement Account at age 55 earning you 5% return for 1st $60k and 4% for the remaining, you should get $258.81k at age 65!

WOW YOU STILL PADDLING YOUR SAME OLD BULLS SHIT ? Simply ignore BEQUEST ? WHAT ABOUT THE montly payout? THEN YOU PLAY ARD THE AGE.. 80.. then later say 85 then late say 75..

WAT A WORM

[Hakuho]

??

Did you read LSH at all ?

Full retirement sum FRS at age 55, $166 k

Vested sum at age 65, $244 k

Total monthly payouts 65-80, $244 k (at $1355 pm, LSH’s number)

At age 80, vested sum completely consumed

If the individual lives until 85, an additional $81 k paid

If the individual lives until 95, an additional $162 k paid

[teddybear]

minority,
Wow! After exposing you for being the BIGGEST LIAR and BULLSHITTER here and you are still so thick skin to be around?

minority, still waiting for your reply of my previous post, this is like the 40th time I am asking you the same question to clarify YOUR CLAIM (that you refuse to answer):

http://forums.condosingapore.com/sho...020#post524020

minority,
I am repeating and this like 30th time now AND You are still NOT ANSWERING my QUESTION:
Didn't you claim CPF Life gives 7.5% return in your previous post?

Post of evidence of your LIE is at this URL here:
http://forums.condosingapore.com/sho...ht=#post523905

Why after I exposed your LIE, you are not going to defend your PONZI "7.5% return" for CPF Life any more???
Is it because you know you are unable to defend the "7.5%" after being exposed??? Ha ha ha!

WOW YOU STILL PADDLING YOUR SAME OLD BULLS SHIT ? Simply ignore BEQUEST ? WHAT ABOUT THE montly payout? THEN YOU PLAY ARD THE AGE.. 80.. then later say 85 then late say 75..

WAT A WORM

[teddybear]

Did you read LSH at all ?

Don't think I read everything written by him, but certain things I happened to read from LSH seems to be different from what you quoted him to be saying.
Please post the relevant link of what you quoted for us to verify before this can be discussed further.

??

Did you read LSH at all ?

Full retirement sum FRS at age 55, $166 k

Vested sum at age 65, $244 k

Total monthly payouts 65-80, $244 k (at $1355 pm, LSH’s number)

At age 80, vested sum completely consumed

If the individual lives until 85, an additional $81 k paid

If the individual lives until 95, an additional $162 k paid

[Amber Woods]

??

Did you read LSH at all ?

Full retirement sum FRS at age 55, $166 k

Vested sum at age 65, $244 k

Total monthly payouts 65-80, $244 k (at $1355 pm, LSH’s number)

At age 80, vested sum completely consumed

If the individual lives until 85, an additional $81 k paid

If the individual lives until 95, an additional $162 k paid

CPF Life works on the principle that people who die earlier (before 80) subsidy people who live longer (above 80).

We need to NOTE that CPF board pays interest for the minimum sum in your RA from age 55 to 65. Thereafter, CPF will not pay you any interest in your REDUCING BALANCE amount in your RA at age 65 onward when you start to draw down from your RA.

By right, your reducing balance in your RA should receive interest. Because CPF board needs to pay out from its 'own packet' when you live beyond 80 years, hence CPF is not paying you any interest from your reducing balance in your RA from age 65 onward so that CPF board could pay those living longer than 80 years the monthly payout till death from the interest CPF board save from not paying you interest in your reducing balance in your RA from age 65 onward.

So in effect, CPF board simply use the interest from your reducing balance in your RA (by not paying you any interest from age 65 onward) to pay to those who live longer than 80 years.

[Kelonguni]

That's why I feel we need to have many more mechanisms to generate nett income when we retire, and real estate is probably the oldest, most reliable and easiest to understand and deploy.

And I prefer not to keep so much CPF, just the basic to standard level. Locked for drawdown at 65 does not entice as much as having at fingertips for medium to high interest deployment even after retirement.

Most importantly, my body doesn't tell me I can live beyond 80.

CPF Life works on the principle that people who die earlier (before 80) subsidy people who live longer (above 80).

We need to NOTE that CPF board pays interest for the minimum sum in your RA from age 55 to 65. Thereafter, CPF will not pay you any interest in your REDUCING BALANCE amount in your RA at age 65 onward when you start to draw down from your RA.

By right, your reducing balance in your RA should receive interest. Because CPF board needs to pay out from its 'own packet' when you live beyond 80 years, hence CPF is not paying you any interest from your reducing balance in your RA from age 65 onward so that CPF board could pay those living longer than 80 years the monthly payout till death from the interest CPF board save from not paying you interest in your reducing balance in your RA from age 65 onward.

So in effect, CPF board simply use the interest from your reducing balance in your RA (by not paying you any interest from age 65 onward) to pay to those who live longer than 80 years.