How much is you Money after 1,10,20,30 years.

[Arcachon]

The Rule of 72 & the Impact of Inflation on the Future Value of a Dollar
Here's a handy shortcut. The rule of 72 says that if inflation is N%/year, prices will double in approximately 72/N years. For example, at 3% inflation, prices will double in (72/3=) 24 years, and at 2% prices will double in (72/2=) 36 years. If prices double, what you used to be able to buy for $50 costs you $100. As a result, your purchasing power would be cut in half; $100 would have the purchasing power than $50 has now. If you check the chart, you will see that the 3% (blue) line reaches $50 at about 35 years and the 2% (green) line gets there at 24 years.


http://observationsandnotes.blogspot...xx-future.html

[Arcachon]

However, A $50,000 Home Sold for $300,000 Does Not Produce a $250,000 Profit!
If a $50,000 home sells for $300,000 30 years later, many people see this as a $250,000 profit. However, a little thought should convince you that this is not the case. To do a thorough analysis, you would need to consider the total impact that the purchase of the home had on the buyer's finances. That is, we need to look at all of the net additional expenditures associated with the purchase. Otherwise, we will be misled.

http://observationsandnotes.blogspot...ince-1900.html

[Arcachon]

Housing as an Investment: A More Complete Cost Picture
Here is a sample of some of the most significant additional expenditures -- i.e., beyond "purchase price" -- that need to be factored into a more thorough analysis of residential real estate investments.

Miscellaneous purchasing costs: In addition to the sales price, the initial cost typically includes application fees, appraisals, inspections, legal fees, and possibly other closing costs. In my experience, this adds thousands of dollars to the initial outlay.
Interest: With a 5.25% mortgage, for every $100,000 in mortgage principal the buyer will pay another $100,000 in interest over 30 years. Higher interest rates produce even higher total interest payments. In the days when rates were more than 10%, total interest payments were often more than twice as much as the principal amount. (Note: Interest payments are currently tax deductible, so the net impact on the buyer is reduced somewhat.)
Taxes and insurance: Real estate taxes can be thousands of dollars each year. (Note: these are also currently tax deductible.) In addition, mortgage holders require that homes be insured.
Maintenance & improvements: These costs never seem to end. From repairing/replacing air conditioners, furnaces, appliances and the roof, to interior & external painting, to .... In addition, longer-term owners typically spend significant amounts on "improvements." These can range from a minor bathroom update to adding a new bedroom or patio, to completely redoing a bath or kitchen. A major improvement can cost as much as a small house! These costs are all part of the cost of owning a home.
Selling costs: Finally, to get that "profit," you have to sell the property. Traditionally, 6% of the sales prices goes to the broker, plus there are additional closing costs such as the title search. In addition, there are often fix-up costs to prepare the home for sale, and "staging" costs to make your home look as attractive as possible to potential buyers while it is on the market.
Other costs: Additional costs may or may not be appropriate to include depending upon the circumstances. For example, in some cases the net proceeds of the sale are subject to income taxes.
As you can see, the purchase price is just the beginning of the total cost of the home. However, too often, many or all of the additional costs listed above are left out of the home investor's mental calculations.

The Impact of Inflation
Comparing a $300,000 sales price in 2005 to a $50,000 purchase price in 1975 without adjusting for inflation is like comparing bananas and cumquats; you are comparing dollars from different eras. Many people forget that, because of inflation, buying a $50,000 home would have been a much greater strain on the average family's budget in 1975 than it would have been in 2005. In fact, spending $50,000 in 1975 was equivalent to spending approximately $180,000 in 2005 dollars. (See 100 Years of Inflation-Adjusted Housing Price History or What Would $10,000 in 19xx be Equivalent to Today?.)

[Yuki]

Useful post.

Are there any more similar posts in Singapore context?

[minority]

The Rule of 72 & the Impact of Inflation on the Future Value of a Dollar
Here's a handy shortcut. The rule of 72 says that if inflation is N%/year, prices will double in approximately 72/N years. For example, at 3% inflation, prices will double in (72/3=) 24 years, and at 2% prices will double in (72/2=) 36 years. If prices double, what you used to be able to buy for $50 costs you $100. As a result, your purchasing power would be cut in half; $100 would have the purchasing power than $50 has now. If you check the chart, you will see that the 3% (blue) line reaches $50 at about 35 years and the 2% (green) line gets there at 24 years.


http://observationsandnotes.blogspot...xx-future.html

Yes the rule of 72. it takes about 14.5 Years for $100 to become $50. about the time some one run through 7 mobile phones contracts. So frankly people need to think about it. What they are doing to hedge against inflation.

[Arcachon]

He (MP Hri Kumar Nair )added: "Based on actuarial science, it is determined that if you have $155,000... you will have $1,200 per month for the rest of your life. And that is determined to be what a lower, middle-income person will spend in his lifetime."

http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapo...-questions-cpf

When you cannot argue your point, just use some kind of science to explain.

Why don't he explain in more simple term, we print too much money and we forget to get everyone to get into more debt instead of leaving the money in the Bank.

[Arcachon]

Inflation is often defined as a sustained increase in prices for a broad range of goods. Economists explain that rising prices are the symptom, however, and not the cause. The cause of inflation is the devaluation of currency, frequently brought about by the introduction of more currency into the economy. As a simplified example, say there is $100 available to purchase 100 cheese steaks. The price of a cheese steak is going to be $1. Someone prints another $100 exclusively for cheese steaks. The price of the 100 cheese steaks will become $2 each.

http://homeguides.sfgate.com/effect-...ices-2161.html

Inflationary Effects
Absent economic and supply and demand pressures, the price of goods remains the same. If the only change introduced to the economy is the addition of money, the price of goods will rise. Of course the economy is dynamic--nothing ever stays the same and there are a host of pressures starting and changing every day. But when the influence of other factors is small, more money moving around more quickly will increase the price of nearly everything. So with inflation, housing prices tend to rise.

Leverage

Housing is generally viewed as a good asset when it comes to inflation, in part because it will rise with the inflation rate and in part because it is a leveraged asset. When you buy real estate, you make a downpayment of perhaps 20 to 30 percent of the house price. The house price rises by the rate of inflation times the cost of the house, not by the cost of your downpayment. So if inflation doubled the value of the house, it may have quadrupled the value of your downpayment. If you took out a fixed-rate mortgage, you have done even better because you are making a payment that dropped in inflation-adjusted dollars--you are paying less for the loan than you did when you took it out.

[Arcachon]

What Causes Inflation and

How It Effects

Real Estate Prices


Here is a simple question for you: do wet streets cause rain? Or does rain cause wet streets? Everyone knows that rain causes wet streets and not the other way around. Yet, relating that same example to inflation, do rising prices cause inflation? If the price of oil goes up this month, does that cause inflation? If the price of insurance, or health care, or college tuition goes up, does that cause inflation? Do wet streets cause rain?

Unfortunately, the established media present inflation statistics in such a way that suggests that rising prices do indeed cause inflation. Consumers are led to believe that if the price of oil goes up on international markets, it will create a domino effect across our economy causing the prices of many other things to rise, and thus causing inflation to rise. That is pure folly. Wet streets do not cause rain, nor do rising prices cause inflation. Wet streets and rising prices are both symptoms, but not the source of the cause. Let me explain.

In our economy, there is a finite amount of "money". The definition of money nowadays is more than a little confusing. Even Alan Greenspan, former chairman of the Federal Reserve, testified before Congress that it is hard to understand and define what money actually is. The Federal reserve has some definitions. M1 includes just cash, or currency. M2 includes cash, plus cash equivalents, such as deposits in checking accounts that can be readily spent. M3 includes even more, but the Federal Reserve as of March this year stopped publishing M# statistics. Regardless of what definition of money that you use, there is a fixed amount of it in use in our economy.

The basic cause of inflation, at its very root, is the dilution in the value of money. When the value of money goes down, it has the effect of making prices of everything go up. However, prices going up is not inflation itself, but rather the result of true inflation: the dilution in the value of money. If the value of money wasn't diluted in the first place, prices would not respond by going up. Our economic system is very complex, involving literally trillions of individual transactions every year. But the basic principle of inflation is quite simple. When excess money is put into our economy, it dilutes the value of the existing money, and thus we have inflation.

Think of our economy as one big auction. Lots of things for sale, and lots of buyers actually purchasing those things. To keep our example understandable, we'll use round numbers. If there are one million items for sale in our auction, and one million buyers, each with one dollar to spend, the average price per item will be one dollar, assuming everything sells. If an outside source gives each buyer another dollar (thus doubling the total amount of money in the auction) without an increase in the amount of items available to purchase, then the average price per item would be two dollars. The more money that is introduced into this auction, the more prices will go up. Assume that several buyers were allowed to photocopy currency, and could use this to purchase items in the auction. If these people could use the photocopy machine without limit, isn't it easy to see how prices in the auction would rise in the same fashion as a result of all this "money" competing for the same items? By introducing more "money" into the system, the value of existing "money" gets diluted. That is how inflation works.

Now, the population of this country grows each year by about 1.7%. Realistically, there should be 1.7% more cars, houses, offices, etc. If the money supply increases by 1.7%, it would offset the increase in tangibles, and prices would neither fall nor rise, but remain stable. However, if the supply of money increases by 11.7%, there would be an extra 10% that would dilute the value of the existing money that is already in the system. That would be the source of inflation.

History teaches us that governments and other "powers that be" cannot resist the temptation to print paper money recklessly for their own self-interests. Realistically, the temptation is just too great. If you could photocopy money without penalty of law and jail, wouldn't you? If the only penalty of doing so was that it dilutes the value of everybody else's money, how could you resist? Want a fancy sports car? Just go the the photocopy machine. Want a new waterfront estate? Another trip to the photocopier.....

http://first-time-home-buyer-s.com/w...and_how_it.htm

http://first-time-home-buyer-s.com/h...ts_diluted.htm

How can you protect yourself from your money losing its value through dilution? Buy assets and/or commodities whose supply is finite and is essential. Energy fits this description. So does real estate, as well as precious metals. Some real estate will fare better in inflationary times than others. Property close to major centers of trade is always in demand. Luxury property located on the waterfront within and hour's drive of major centers of trade will also benefit substantially in times of inflation. Essentially, in times of inflation, it is better to have your wealth in assets that will appreciate in value, rather than in cash (and its substitutes, i.e. a savings account) which will go down in value.

[hyenergix]

China's fine-tuning adds up to stimulus by stealth
PUBLISHED JUNE 16, 2014

[BEIJING] China's piecemeal approach to loosening monetary policy this year may be discreet, but the cumulative effect is proving just as powerful as an outright cut in bank reserves.

Wary of being criticised for not doing enough to wean the world's second-largest economy off its reliance on easy credit and heavy investment, authorities have ruled out major stimulus even as growth slowed to an 18-month low in the first quarter.

Instead, the People's Bank of China (PBOC) has relied on four low-key adjustments that have added a total of 550 billion yuan (US$88 billion) into the banking system, a calculation based on a Reuters poll and information from sources shows.

That is equivalent to an economy-wide 50 basis point cut in the reserve requirement ratio (RRR), the level of reserves that banks must hold, a splashier move which would also have released 550 billion yuan in one stroke.

The four moves - two reductions in the RRR for selected banks and two big loans to commercial banks - are designed to direct cash to where its needed in the economy, and thwart speculative investment.

Characterising these changes as a "fine-tuning", the central bank has been adamant that overall monetary policy has not changed and remains prudent. "We need to take a holistic view about monetary easing,"said Wei Yao, an economist at Societe Generale in Hong Kong. "The approach is called 'fine-tuning' because they did it bit by bit, but the accumulated impact is not small."

MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE

Falls in the exchange rate and short-term interest rates have further loosened monetary conditions.

The rolling monthly average for the benchmark short-term interest rate, the seven-day bond repurchase rate, has fallen 110 points since April, when the stimulus steps began, to 3.7 per cent. And the yuan has fallen 2.5 per cent this year.

Investment bank JPMorgan compiles a monetary conditions indicator that tracks the impact of changes in China's credit growth, excess reserves, real exchange rate and one-year interest rates.

Liquidity has become more ample, said Zhu Haibin, an economist at the bank, with the indicator suggesting monetary conditions eased by about 20 per cent in April from March.

PUMP-PRIMING?

The government has also made a number of fiscal policy announcements, including faster spending of budget funds, tax cuts for some industries, and infrastructure projects, but their immediate impact is harder to quantify.

On April 2, the government began its stimulus by saying that it would speed up construction of rail lines and build 18 per cent more railway tracks this year compared to 2013.

In May, authorities sent out an urgent instruction to local governments to ramp up spending and finalise 2014 budget allocations by the end of June or risk losing the funding.

The threat looks to be working. Government spending in May leapt 25 per cent from a year earlier, with infrastructure investment jumping 16 per cent.

Money spent on unspecified public works such as parks, the third-biggest expenditure item at 451 billion yuan in the first five months of the year, bounded up by 22 per cent.

But complicating matters is a sharp rise in outstanding fiscal deposits - or unspent government income - this year, up 19 per cent at the end of April compared to the same time last year. This raises doubt over just how much fiscal pump-priming is really going on, said Xu Gao, an economist at Essence Securities.

For Stephen Green, an economist at Standard Chartered Bank, the changes in monetary conditions are enough to convince him policy is being eased. "We started the year with seven-day repo rates at 5 per cent and now it's nearly at 3 per cent. That's fairly clearly loosening," he said. - Reuters

http://www.businesstimes.com.sg/brea...ealth-20140616

[Yuki]

I think we are very fortunate to be able to have members who shares such insightful knowledge. .

I m wondering how much the printed money has inflated our property prices?

Especially for ocr ones. I.e $1 dollar in the past need $2 to buy since government print ed x2 ?

Or the prices have runaway and artificially much higher -due to speculation - than the inflated priced caused by printing of money?

If its artificially inflated...is it over by 20 percent since government wants to 'depress' it to that level?

[Arcachon]

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/sing...oney-supply-m3



http://therichkidwannabe.blogspot.fr...-grows-in.html

[Arcachon]

http://asiasingapore.blogspot.fr/201...inflation.html

What is inflation?
Labels: Singapore Economy



You know Singapore's inflation surprised experts by being up 5.7% in November 2011. Although housing, transportation and petrol prices contributed significantly, a worrying trend was also the food prices, they were up %3.6.

But what is inflation? What are the causes of inflation? Inflation is actually is a symptom rather than the sickness itself. When the amount of money in an economy increases faster than the amount of goods and services, the overall consumer prices rise. This rise is called inflation. 5.7% rise in November 2011 means, a basket of goods which costed S$100 back in November 2010 now costs S$105.7. This is what the rate of inflation is.

For individual goods, the amount of that good plays a significant role. For example due to the floods in Thailand, the amount of rice supplied to Singapore will probably decrease. But since the money chasing it will not decrease fast enough, the price of rice will probably rise. But foe entire goods and services, the inflation, especially in developed economies, is caused by the faster increase in the amount of the money. I say faster because technology and innovation in developed countries increases the amount of goods and services available. So if the amount of money was fixed, the overall prices would decrease. But since they are increasing, you can conclude that amount of money is increasing.

The below chart shows M2 money supply in Singapore for the last 20 years. M2 is money and close substitutes of money (all time-related deposits, savings deposits, and non-institutional money-market funds) since 1996. M2 is a broader classification of money than M1. Economists use M2 when looking to quantify the amount of money in circulation and trying to explain different economic monetary conditions. M2 is a key economic indicator used to forecast inflation. (Source : Money Supply)

You can see that the M2 increased almost 10% from 2010 to 2011 (actually more since December 2011 numbers are not in yet)! So almost %6 inflation tells us that overall amount of goods and services have not increased as fast from 2010 to 2011.

[Arcachon]

http://just-my-observation.blogspot....s3084032b.html

In the general scheme of things, in so far that consumers and suppliers of goods and services (we are all participants in each part in our daily affairs) remain decent and honest persons, with the tendency to 'consume' measured by one's tendency to 'produce'(productivity)- then theoretically, there would be NO consistent CPI rise except the occasional isolated demand/supply imbalance due to natural disaster or war. But Singapore is quite insulated away from any significant natural disaster or war, so why has the average price of goods between 1989 (CPI=71.3) and 2009(CPI=100) increased (inflated) by (100.0-71.3)/71.3 = 40.25% over the 20 years?? [See Pict: 'Singapore Annual Inflation rate and CPI (1980-2012)/Singstat']

Studying the chart about 'Singapore Money Supply (DBU), M1,2,3, 1989 to 2012' for monetary supply changes between 1989 and 2009, one would easily note that M1 (Narrowly defined, money supply (M1) consists of currency in active circulation and demand deposits) M1 grew from S$13.7446B (1989) to S$93.4721B(2009)- a whopping 5.8fold increase over the 20years documented. (WRT to the M3 numbers of S$71.0078B(1989) vs S$378.5260(2009), the increase is a 4.33fold increase over 20 yrs)

The official foreign reserves of Singapore between 1989 and 2000 are not available but according to 'Singapore official financial reserves (2001-2011)', the totals were S$139.7143B(2001) and S$308.4032B(2011)- amounting to a 1.207fold increase over the 10 year period (of course subject to variations in international currency exchange rates [SGD exc rt, 2001-2011]).

According to 'Singapore Time Series on Population (Mid-Year Estimates)' using the 20 year interval where census were taken between 1990 and 2010, the local resident population increased from 2735.9K (1990) to 3771.7K(2010): a 37.86% Singapore resident population increase over the 20 years mentioned.

Singaporeans have not become more lazy, on the contrary, according to 'Singstat: Trends in Productivity and Value Added by industry' 'total economy' (large olive green dot) productivity in Singapore has certainly increased between 1991 and 2011.

Whilst currency exchange rates may be a proximate measure of the relative depreciation of a nation's currency relative to others due to the effect of over supply of one nation's currency as compared to that of another, it cannot be denied that all nations around the world, led by the USA, are into a conspiracy of freely printing money which is of course inflationary 'Chart: Estimated global monetary Aggregates (1971-2010)' - the chart showing an approx 3 fold increase in M3 money supply between 1989 to 2009.

Thus in 'Singapore's inflation may remain elevated for years to come: survey' [CNA, 24Jan2013] "survey by the Singapore Management University (SMU)... composite five-year-expectation is 4.97 per cent"

Guess Singaporeans are all victims of a world wide government conspiracy to keep them always working (savings are always eroded by inflation) till the day they die, and also in power (the SG govt has S$308.4032B(2011) alone in foreign reserves and gold).

So moral of the story is that governments all around the world should stop printing so much money to keep inflation under control and voters need to demand so (so as to safeguard one's retirement years).

Guess in Singapore, recent curbs upon car loan and housing loan quantum(s) are merely cosmetic changes meant to fudge inflation statistics yet do minimal to improve the lives of the poor and downtrodden.

Perhaps the Singapore government could lead the way forward by firstly not printing so much money which only breeds inflation if not hyper inflation as the population growth within a limited land area can only be so much.

Perhaps the Singapore government could start the discussion by explaining to the populace what it intends to do with its SGD 308.4032B(2011) in foreign reserves (should be more by now), and please be reminded, that convenient half truths by Ministers really do not help.

Picts below,
Rgds,
B.C.

[Arcachon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq8o1kALaXc

[Arcachon]

Money printing (/borrowing) by Singapore government- how much is too much?

Briefly, M1= printed SGD in circulation + some more, M3= quasi money= everything including government bonds (treasuries) etc (people will pay U money for these at whatever is market rate(much is sold to CPF so Temasek & GIC can invest the CPF monies etc) but too big to use at super-mart).
Will so much printed money worsen the rate of inflation (even if it isn't captured by the CPI) in Singapore? ('Why CPI might fail to capture the true rate of Inflation in Singapore.'[HWZ, 11Jan2013])
Will so much money 'printing' worsen the wealth divide?
Will the supply inflation of the SGD ($ printing) also inflate the housing price in Singapore?
Are CPI measurements in Singapore consistent over the years just as the luxuries enjoyed by the average Singaporean (who has been forced to become more and more 'productive') have alongside increased- is this 'productivity' readily translatable into quality of life improvements?
What is the effect of Singapore's increase in GDP upon the environment- Singapore has already refused entry to boat people arriving as political refugees 'Singapore cannot accept Rohingya refugees' [CNA, 24Mar2009], will Singapore do the same for environmental refugees as sea levels across the world rise?
According to the chart on SG govt money printed, 1989-2011, M3, the broadest measure of Money created by the central bank has increased from
dollar notes created/ printed have increased from SGD71.0 billion (1989) to SGD 451.7 billion (2011)
Using compound interest(inflation) calculator [ink] with the input values as:
Input principle: $71,007.8 M
Input years= 22yrs.
Input total= $451,675.2 M
Result: Effective Annual Rate of increase = 8.7736% P.a.

The same calculation for years 2010 to 2011 period= Effective Annual Rate of increase= 10.135%

Thus if Singaporean quality of life didn't increase by 10.135%, why is the government of Singapore issuing so many treasuries/ printing so much $$$???

In short, the government of Singapore should perhaps avoid printing so much $$$ (bills+treasury bonds) that only serves to inflate a Potemkin GDP figure premised upon high rentals as referenced to inflated property prices- which only serves to make the poor even poorer, which is essentially what the Lehman Brothers 2007/8 economic crisis did. Erstwhile, even if it were necessary to print so much SGD just to maintain equal SGD value depreciation with the exponentially disintegrating USD (aka toilet paper) (due to massive USD quantitative easing@USD$1T p.a.), then perhaps income tax on the poor should be waived, NS allowances increased drastically, and all Singaporeans should be given guidance and a CPF educational account: operational till retirement: so as to pay for preventive health education and lifelong learning schemes from all the extra printed $$$ (8.7736%*$451.67B=S$39.63B p.a) (reserves to be replenished from taxes collected only) .


http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/cu...h-4057641.html

[Arcachon]

http://bschool.nus.edu/LinkClick.asp...=1771&mid=5732

[Arcachon]

http://data.worldbank.org/country/singapore

GDP (current US$) $276.5 billion 2012
Population (Total) 5.312 million 2012

http://databank.worldbank.org/data/v...tableview.aspx

[Arcachon]

In my personal opinion, one of the main culprit for the surge in property prices in Singapore is due to the money supply released via the CPF ordinary account.

It is unclear to me whether the measurement of money supply namely the M1, M2 and M3 calculated by MAS takes into account of the money supply coming from the CPF. It is obvious that CPF has some influence over the money supply but the question is how much. MAS’ calculation of the money supply has not been always consistent. Take for example, POSB’s current account deposits were taken into consideration only when it was merged with DBS. How could this be since POSB was also a bank all along fulfilling the role of a banking institute? If CPF monies were not taken into account of the money supply, it would be a big mistake. However, we must understand that CPF monies cannot be treated similarly as a banking deposit and neither could we treat CPF monies as even a quasi-money. Unlike a banking deposit, CPF money cannot be used except for housing, payment of insurances, children’s education and retirement. For retirement, the withdrawal of the CPF monies now via CPF Life is a slow process over a very long period. Since the largest purchase allowed by CPF is the house, it is only natural that more money supply is available for purchase of the house as compared to say purchase of a car.

While most people do not buy a HDB flat using the entire CPF in lump sum (because they don’t have that amount yet), they would take up a loan from HDB. Neither CPF board nor HDB board provide proper banking functions but their combined characteristics have features of a traditional bank namely in the ability to hold deposits and provide loans. My question is this: Is CPF part of the M1,2 and 3 calculation?

http://www.ifa.sg/anyone-monitoring-...ply-singapore/

[teddybear]

He is not answering the question that most would want to know:
$1,200 per month for the rest of life is very high indeed for individual, so why need so high min sum of $155,000 when min wage is only $1,000 pm and financial aid is only $300+ pm?

He (MP Hri Kumar Nair )added: "Based on actuarial science, it is determined that if you have $155,000... you will have $1,200 per month for the rest of your life. And that is determined to be what a lower, middle-income person will spend in his lifetime."

http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapo...-questions-cpf

When you cannot argue your point, just use some kind of science to explain.

Why don't he explain in more simple term, we print too much money and we forget to get everyone to get into more debt instead of leaving the money in the Bank.

[phantom_opera]

He is not answering the question that most would want to know:
$1,200 per month for the rest of life is very high indeed for individual, so why need so high min sum of $155,000 when min wage is only $1,000 pm and financial aid is only $300+ pm?

he never mentioned btn 55-65 u get 0$ per month, annuity payout of 1.2kpm only starts at 65

taxi drivers? after all the MRT lines are up and buses everywhere do we still need so many taxis?

annuity payout should start at 55 lah, if run out at 80+ so be it

Houston, we have a problem

[minority]

He is not answering the question that most would want to know:
$1,200 per month for the rest of life is very high indeed for individual, so why need so high min sum of $155,000 when min wage is only $1,000 pm and financial aid is only $300+ pm?

Why u so stupid? $1200 given today n $1200 20 years later that is the value? So if u are given $300 today what is $300 in 20yrs? Which is worst off . While ur talk cock $1000 will inflate with time in 20 yr the min pay for the low wage might be $2000 while the retiree is still $1200.

$1200 is min spending needed in the life time. The retiree with $1200 in the 65 better save n invest a few hundred coz come 20 years the $1200 is only worth $600 today.

How dumb is ur argument? One is a retirement ther other is a working person who will be paid n pay increase with inflation.

Talk cock ask usual. Wats new?

[minority]

he never mentioned btn 55-65 u get 0$ per month, annuity payout of 1.2kpm only starts at 65

taxi drivers? after all the MRT lines are up and buses everywhere do we still need so many taxis?

annuity payout should start at 55 lah, if run out at 80+ so be it

Houston, we have a problem

The low income will always have problem regardless 55 or 65. Rather the get a skill work while the can from 55. Till they hit 65.