Thread: Too old to worK till 65?

1. Re: Too old to worK till 65?

Originally Posted by deckard
first I would like to say that "hate" is the wrong word to use. aiya. why put that word out in the first place? ok. I apologise about that word. I use "dislike" ok? haha.

I am definitely not racist. If you are a parent, will you approve that your daughter bring back a boyfriend that is of different race? some people will approve some won't. personnal choice ok? are parents like that racist?

mod, please don't get me wrong ok. cannot reply there since the thread got closed.
Originally Posted by deckard
thanks. I needed that. what is your perception? this is kopi diam. i understand there is some freedom, but that is not racist lah! PRC chinese and singaporean chinese is the same race!

If i am racist, then loads of NS men in my camp are all racist for "disliking" certain people. I would characterize this as anti-globalization.

so pls lah. I am not racist lah. but anyway sorry to those people in this forum that thought that that post is racist.
You are definately a racist. The NS men in camp who dislike others based on race are racist. The parents who disapprove of their daughter's boyfriend simply becasue they are of different race are racists.

2. Re: Too old to worK till 65?

Originally Posted by blazer_workz
Source:http://forums.clubsnap.org/showpost....8&postcount=16

Pretty interesting mathematics:
Estimated population of SG above 62 = 10% x 4 million = 400,000
Estimated minimum retaining sum in CPF at the age of 62 = \$100,000
Amount of money gov. have to set aside for the elderly withdrawal = 400,000x100,000 = \$40billion

With the ageing population, the figure will increase annually, who wouldn't want to hold back this amount..
Aiyoh, you use my numbers wrongly lah! In terms of annual tax burden, yes, you have to consider all above 62. In terms of the amount g-ment has to set aside yearly for disbursement at retirement, its only for that cohort retiring that year lah! In terms of total CPF monies in g-ment holdings, v hard to tell, many many working adults but a lot drawn down for property etc.

3. Re: Too old to worK till 65?

Originally Posted by furrycake
people live longer now? is it so ? i only read more news of YOUNG people died of heart attack, or rather 'silent attack' - cardiac arrest even when the person appears to be healthy, having healthy diet and suddenly die, just like that.
Such incidence are dramatic and capture the news, reports of population aging are boring and get no airtime

SG stats --> http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/the...indicators.pdf

In 2005, life expectancy at birth was 77.7 yrs for males and 81.6 for females, compared to 73.1 an 77.6 in 1990.

In 2005 % of population >65 was 8.2%, compared to 6.0% in 1990. Not only is it higher, the rate of change will become more rapid.

4. Re: Too old to worK till 65?

Tell you what, lets change the law right now. All over 62 years should get a \$100,000 top up in CASH, don't matter what you spend on. You can got to Vegas, take your round the world trip. If you are destitute at 63, after splurging your money, the g-ment will continue to provide your housing and healthcare till you perish, on average at age 80, to the tune of \$50,000 a year. Total cost per indivdual = \$950,000. Estimatyed population of SG above 62 = 10% x 4 million = 400,000. Total cost per annum = \$50,000 x 400,000 = \$20 billion.

In order to support this, we can either;

1) Draw down foreign reserves, which at \$20 bn a year, will run dry in 6-7 years, or

2) Increase taxes for working adults. \$20 bn a year spread over 2 million working adults will mean an increase in income tax of an average of \$10,000/person/year.

Ok, now you happy?
you funny man. first please tell us how much we have in our foreign reserves..hehe.. I would really like to know.

also the government keeps getting loads of money from other sources too right? Take for example our Car COEs and ERP etc. please tell us how much the g-ment is making on Car COEs and ERP alone per year? thanks.

5. Re: Too old to worK till 65?

Originally Posted by dkw
Such incidence are dramatic and capture the news, reports of population aging are boring and get no airtime

SG stats --> http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/the...indicators.pdf

In 2005, life expectancy at birth was 77.7 yrs for males and 81.6 for females, compared to 73.1 an 77.6 in 1990.

In 2005 % of population >65 was 8.2%, compared to 6.0% in 1990. Not only is it higher, the rate of change will become more rapid.
Read the last sentence.
"Data for selected indicators for 2000 and 2005 have been revised."

What changes/revision was made?

In life, i dun believe on this type of statistics thing..just open up ur eyes, open up ur ears..check out the environment u r in now..

6. Re: Too old to worK till 65?

Originally Posted by dkw
Aiyoh, you use my numbers wrongly lah! In terms of annual tax burden, yes, you have to consider all above 62. In terms of the amount g-ment has to set aside yearly for disbursement at retirement, its only for that cohort retiring that year lah! In terms of total CPF monies in g-ment holdings, v hard to tell, many many working adults but a lot drawn down for property etc.
where got wrong? i oni use the "Estimated population of SG above 62 = 10% x 4 million = 400,000" .. Or izzit i use a wrong minimum CPF retaining sum? \$120k??

7. Re: Too old to worK till 65?

Originally Posted by Deadpoet
You are definately a racist. The NS men in camp who dislike others based on race are racist. The parents who disapprove of their daughter's boyfriend simply becasue they are of different race are racists.
The NS men in camp who dislike others based on race are racist.
I agree. But I am talking about nationality. not race.

The parents who disapprove of their daughter's boyfriend simply because they are of different race are racists.

This will touch on religion and I will not elaborate further.

like blazer said, this will go thru PM.....

8. Re: Too old to worK till 65?

Originally Posted by Deadpoet
You are definately a racist. The NS men in camp who dislike others based on race are racist. The parents who disapprove of their daughter's boyfriend simply becasue they are of different race are racists.
Originally Posted by deckard
The NS men in camp who dislike others based on race are racist.
I agree. But I am talking about nationality. not race.

The parents who disapprove of their daughter's boyfriend simply because they are of different race are racists.

This will touch on religion and I will not elaborate further.

like blazer said, this will go thru PM.....

We do not need to go thru PM on anything.

A racist is a racist, a bigot is a bigot, whether the discriminations and prejudices are based on race, nationality or religion.

The saddest of all, are the discrimination and prejudices from parents against their children's significant others. Because of their own narrow mindedness, they will willingly go mangle up their children's life and happiness. Boggles my mind. If this considered acceptable by society, such society is not worth hanging around.

9. Re: Too old to worK till 65?

Originally Posted by Deadpoet
We do not need to go thru PM on anything.

A racist is a racist, a bigot is a bigot, whether the discriminations and prejudices are based on race, nationality or religion.

The saddest of all, are the discrimination and prejudices from parents against their children's significant others. Because of their own narrow mindedness, they will willingly go mangle up their children's life and happiness. Boggles my mind. If this considered acceptable by society, such society is not worth hanging around.
thanks for clearing that up.

10. Re: Too old to worK till 65?

Originally Posted by dkw
Such incidence are dramatic and capture the news, reports of population aging are boring and get no airtime

SG stats --> http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/the...indicators.pdf

In 2005, life expectancy at birth was 77.7 yrs for males and 81.6 for females, compared to 73.1 an 77.6 in 1990.

In 2005 % of population >65 was 8.2%, compared to 6.0% in 1990. Not only is it higher, the rate of change will become more rapid.
stats are somewhat reliable but to what extend?

i was looking at the stats that you gave and findings are : -
1. fertility rate decreases over time
2. death rate increases over time

so generally speaking, our population is decreasing.

3. age dependency rate decreases - this is the main concern.
but sad to say this is in year 2005 but they only implement this 67-year-then-RIP thingie this year. so apparently this move is supposed to yet decrease the dependency rate isnt it? so say, we retire at age 67 instead of 55. i just think its shdnt be across the board. i only see it in dollars and cents - we'll need to input another 12 years of monies into 'our' CPF - into who's care again?

ive always wonder why more Singaporeans are actually migrating to other countries or that even expats are leaving? hmmm

11. Re: Too old to worK till 65?

Originally Posted by blazer_workz
Read the last sentence.
"Data for selected indicators for 2000 and 2005 have been revised."

What changes/revision was made?

In life, i dun believe on this type of statistics thing..just open up ur eyes, open up ur ears..check out the environment u r in now..
yeah. garment lets you see what you want to see

12. Re: Too old to worK till 65?

Originally Posted by blazer_workz
Read the last sentence.
"Data for selected indicators for 2000 and 2005 have been revised."

What changes/revision was made?

In life, i dun believe on this type of statistics thing..just open up ur eyes, open up ur ears..check out the environment u r in now..
So walking around orchard road and taking your own poll will be more reliable than looking at government population statistics, which by the way is entirely consistent with what other developing countries have or are going through? How ridiculous is that? What have you seen in YOUR environment and your THOROUGH research that tells you that these are inaccurate?

So what are you saying, these are concocted numbers?

13. Re: Too old to worK till 65?

Originally Posted by furrycake
yeah. garment lets you see what you want to see
Furrycake, how about being a little objectiveon this matter? This is nothing surprising, the birth rate has been low for decades, and the population is aging. This is the road trod by the Japanese and many Western European countries, it is entirely consistent. Yes, there is a possibility of slight error in all estimates, but what is the basis to contend that these figures are to be doubted?

14. Re: Too old to worK till 65?

Originally Posted by blazer_workz
where got wrong? i oni use the "Estimated population of SG above 62 = 10% x 4 million = 400,000" .. Or izzit i use a wrong minimum CPF retaining sum? \$120k??
Numbers right, application and context wrong.

15. Re: Too old to worK till 65?

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. --- Benjamin Disraeli

16. Re: Too old to worK till 65?

Originally Posted by dkw
This is nothing surprising, the birth rate has been low for decades, and the population is aging. This is the road trod by the Japanese and many Western European countries, it is entirely consistent. Yes, there is a possibility of slight error in all estimates, but what is the basis to contend that these figures are to be doubted?
edited

okay, i try to be more objective if you are implying that i'm not. but since i don't work for Singapore Department of Statistics, thats for sure so i cannot say they're right or wrong, but can you say statistics are 100% correct ?

and besides pasting that link which you did and i went to look, in which do you know how this Singapore Department of Statistics got their data from ? they hire part time students sometimes to do those surveys.

i have no arguments on the birth/death rates, but the reliability on data like, dependency rate ... how true is that ?

17. Re: Too old to worK till 65?

Originally Posted by deckard
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. --- Benjamin Disraeli
Singaporeans are living longer and getting older on average. Are you saying that is a lie?

18. Re: Too old to worK till 65?

Originally Posted by furrycake
edited

okay, i try to be more objective if you are implying that i'm not. but since i don't work for Singapore Department of Statistics, thats for sure so i cannot say they're right or wrong, but can you say statistics are 100% correct ?

and besides pasting that link which you did and i went to look, in which do you know how this Singapore Department of Statistics got their data from ? they hire part time students sometimes to do those surveys.

i have no arguments on the birth/death rates, but the reliability on data like, dependency rate ... how true is that ?
The dependancy ratio is merely a derivation from the % of population in each age bucket. If those are accurate, then the ratio is accurate. There is always some margin of error in population statistics, maybe +/- a few points, but do you disagree that broadly, the population is living longer, getting older and having fewer youngsters? That is all the stats say. And it is entirely consistent with what has happened or is happening in developed countries. They may not be pin-point accurate to the 10th decimal place, but do you accept that they portray a reasonably accurate trend?

19. Re: Too old to worK till 65?

Originally Posted by dkw
So walking around orchard road and taking your own poll will be more reliable than looking at government population statistics, which by the way is entirely consistent with what other developing countries have or are going through? How ridiculous is that? What have you sedn in YOUR environment and your THOROUGH research that tells you that these are inaccurate?

So what are you saying, these are concocted numbers?
lol..u must be joking..orchard road? how many are Singaporeans? go to the heartlands where all the Singaporeans are..kopishop, hawker centres, wet markets..8-9 out of 10 are complaining hardly can survive in Singapore..other countries? and which country?

Riduculous? lol apple compare wif orange? or apple compare wif pineapples? so wat's next? apple compare wif durains? Mine are not research..no need funds one..just a touch of humanity..

I never say numbers are concocted.. Its like playing 4D u noe? 24 permutation..there will be a combination to strike 1st prize..

20. Re: Too old to worK till 65?

Originally Posted by dkw
Singaporeans are living longer and getting older on average. Are you saying that is a lie?
how can you trust the numbers?

how much is in our foreign reserves?

how much money is COE and ERP making for the g-ment?

Page 4 of 7 First ... 23456 ... Last

Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•