3 thoughts on “Why Relying On CPF Might Screw Your Retirement”

  1. Also, a large portion of our CPF goes into funding our homes. So if we can’t liquidate our property (not that we should) we’d have even less. And if you borrow from the gahmen, it’s at 2.6% interest, higher than what the Ordinary account pays out. I guess for many of us, 60 is probably too optimistic a retiring age?

  2. True that! Well, the gahmen requires you to pay back CPF everything PLUS INTEREST if you ever sell your house, so that’s why I didnt include it in my calculations. But you’re right that if you don’t sell your house, then a large chunk of it would go to CPF. Soooo we’d all be asset rich, cash poor: owning our own houses, but working at McDonalds.

    The bottom line is that CPF is a nice thing to have because it may give you a couple of hundred dollars a month at retirement, but there is no way that anybody is going to be able to live off it.

  3. CPF isn’t a completely bad idea. Considering SG has a SWF, Temseak could easily top up CPF accounts to counteract inflection.

    But I agree that relying on CPF alone is a bad idea. It should be used in combination with tax funded pensions (I.e. raise funds in the same year as paying out) and pension insurance schemes. Multiple sources would help mitigate pressure on SWFs to generate money or the next generation supporting twice the number of people.

    SG should attempt a combination of CPF + SWF + Pension Insurance, and attempt to give things like accommodation or transport free of charge to those you don’t have enough money.

Comments are closed.

Scroll to Top