Rilek1Corner

Tag: CPF

  • What Happens To The CPF Money If Your Husband Passes On Before Reaching 55

    What Happens To The CPF Money If Your Husband Passes On Before Reaching 55

    Duit oh Duit!
    .

    Tadi berbincang dengan seorang teman yang baru
    beberapa bulan kematian suami.
    Suaminya meninggal pada usia 54 tahun,
    dan tak sempat nak merasa duit CPFnya pun!
    Suaminya meninggalkan seorang isteri dan
    2 orang anak perempuan yang dalam usia 20an.
    .
    .

    Masaalahnya:
    Apa hukum duit CPF dan rumah HDB peninggalan sang suami?
    Adakah keluarga sang suami ada hak ke atas harta tersebut?

    Lalu kak Aabid pun buat research di website
    Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura.
    .

    1] Adakah wang CPF (Tabung Simpanan Pekerja)
    yang telah diletakkan nama “calon” (nominee)
    oleh si mati menjadikan calon tersebut
    pemilik harta wangCPF itu secara mutlak?
    .

    Jawapan:
    Jawatankuasa Fatwa telah mengulas kembali fatwa
    berkenaan nominasi CPF pada mesyuarat yang ke 24,
    bertarikh 3 Ogos 2010.
    .

    Jawatankuasa Fatwa memutuskan bahawa:
    Sistem nominasi merupakan cara baru pembahagian harta.
    Cara ini tidak terdapat dalam penulisan dan karya para ulama terdahulu, namun ia dibenarkan kerana ia dianggap sebagai jenis hibah yang baru.

    http://www.muis.gov.sg/officeofthe…/…/wang-nominasi-cpf.html

    .

    2] Bolehkah Saya melakukan Nuzriah atau Hibah Ruqba pada Rumah HDB?

    Jawapan: http://www.muis.gov.sg/…/Joint%20Tenancy%20Fatwa%20Booklet_…

    .
    .

    Semoga perkongsian ini membantu mereka
    yang memerlukan jawapan pada persoalan di atas.

    Sila SHARE sekiranya ia boleh memberi manafaat pada ramai!

    #kakAabid
    #HukumDuitCPFuntukKeluargaSimati
    #DuitOhDuit

     

     

    Source: Aabidah Samath

     

  • Leong Sze Hian: $324.2b Owed To CPF Members?

    Leong Sze Hian: $324.2b Owed To CPF Members?

    I refer to the article “Why does Singapore have an external debt of US$1.766 trillion?” (Straits Times, Dec 28).

    Govt “invests all the proceeds which it has borrowed”

    It states that “A Government article on the subject explains that Singapore does not borrow to spend. Instead, it invests all the proceeds which it has borrowed.

    Total outstanding Government borrowings is S$436b

    The income which it earns from its investments is also more than sufficient to cover the debt servicing costs. As of March this year, the total outstanding Government borrowings stood at S$436 billion.

    The Government issues three types of domestic debts:

    * Singapore Government Securities to develop the domestic debt market;

    CPF is part of domestic debts

    * Special Singapore Government Securities to meet the investment needs of the Central Provident Fund, and

    * Singapore Saving Bonds to provide individual investors with a long-term saving option that offers safe returns.

    What is also important to note is that unlike some other countries which have to raise funds in currencies such as the US dollar or euro to balance their books, the Government does not have any foreign currency debts.”

    Amount due to CPF members is $324.2b

    According to the Department of Statistics’ Monthly Digest of Statistics – the Amount Due to (CPF) Members is $324.2 billion in October, 2016.

    This has been increasing steadily annually from $150.9 million in January 1961.

    % credited to CPF members – “na” from 1961 to 2001?

    The Interest Credited to CPF members is shown as “na” from January 1961 to December 2001.

    % in 2002 was 2.6%?

    For January 2002 – the Interest Credited was $238 million over the Amount Due to Members of $92.9 billion.

    This works out to an annual interest of only about 2.6 per cent.

    % in 2006 was 3.1%?

    Similarly, for October 2016 – the Interest Credited was $1.02 billion over the Amount Due to Members of $324.2 billion.

    This works out to an annual interest of about 3.1 per cent (up to October).

    Real % was 0.5% from 2001 to 2015?

    Since inflation from 2001 to 2015 was about 2 per cent per annum (CPI 2015 99.461 divided by 2001 75.568) – does it mean that the real annualised rate of return on our CPF Ordinary Account is only about 0.5 per cent (2.5 – 2.0) per annum?

    Lowest real % of all national pension funds in the world?

    Is this the lowest real rate of return of all national pension funds in the world since 1999 – the year that I understand that the CPF Ordinary Account interest rate has remained at 2.5 per cent until now?

    Returns from investing our CPF?

    What is the annualised rate of return derived from investing our CPF funds since 1999?

    In this connection, I would like to quote again – “A Government article on the subject explains that Singapore does not borrow to spend. Instead, it invests all the proceeds which it has borrowed“.

    Cumulative returns from investing our CPF vs % to CPF members?

    What is the cumulative difference between the annualised rate of return derived from investing our CPF funds since 1961 (when CPF started) to today, and the annualised rate given to CPF members?

    In absolute numbers on a cumulative basis with interest – how much money are we talking about over the last 55 years?

    No transparency and accountability?

    Are we the only developing or developed country in the world that is arguably non-transparent, as there is no disclosure on the rate of return derived from our pension funds relative to the weighted average interest rate paid on all our CPF accounts (Ordinary, Special, Medisave and Retirement accounts)?

    $324.2b owed to CPF members?

    Also, does it mean that our domestic debt owed to CPF members is $324.2 billion?

     

    Source: http://leongszehian.com

  • Singaporean Becomes NZ Citizen, Cannot Get Senior Citizen Benefit There Because of Unclaimed CPF In Singapore

    Singaporean Becomes NZ Citizen, Cannot Get Senior Citizen Benefit There Because of Unclaimed CPF In Singapore

    A 66-year-old Singaporean failed in his bid to get senior citizen pension benefits in New Zealand after a tribunal found he had not first used his Central Provident Fund (CPF) money, as advised.

    The Social Security Appeal Authority was not convinced by his concerns of being traced by the Singapore authorities if he applied to withdraw his CPF money, as there could be “significant repercussions” for his two grown-up sons, who were liable for national service (NS).

    “(He) was completely unable to explain what action the Singapore authorities might be able to take against him or his sons if they became aware of his residence in New Zealand,” said the Social Security Appeal Authority of New Zealand in decision grounds released last month.

    Superannuation benefits of about NZ$600 (S$570) are payable fortnightly to New Zealand citizens or permanent residents over 65 who have lived in the country for at least 10 years since they turned 20, five of which must be since they turned 50 years old, according to its website.

    But the payout is modified according to conditions such as deductions from income earned elsewhere or abroad.

    According to the decision grounds, the Singapore citizen, who is also a New Zealand citizen, was granted the benefit when he turned 65 in November 2014 but he disclosed in his application that he had lived in Singapore for 50 years.

    He had worked in various jobs in Singapore before emigrating to New Zealand in 2000 with his wife and two sons, then aged eight and 10.

    The Auckland-based man, who was granted citizenship in 2004, was told by New Zealand’s Ministry of Social Development to apply to Singapore’s CPF Board to withdraw funds from there.

    He objected and failed to comply with the July 2015 deadline issued by the New Zealand ministry. A month later, his New Zealand Superannuation was suspended.

    He initially claimed it was discriminatory to require people from countries that paid pensions, such as Singapore, to be required to apply for those pensions, which were then deducted from their entitlement to New Zealand Superannuation.

    He pursued the case before the two-member appeal authority, arguing among other things that his two sons, now aged 25 and 23 years and having promising careers, could be affected if his whereabouts were known to the Singapore authorities through his CPF application.

    The man, who was not named, suggested his sons might be forced to return to Singapore to do national service and be prosecuted as enlistment defaulters. Under Singapore laws, eligible persons who fail to register for national service may be fined up to $10,000 or jailed up to three years or both.

    But the tribunal pointed out that the alleged offences under the Singapore Enlistment Act were not recognised as extraditable offences under New Zealand law and prosecution was, therefore, “remote”.

    “We are not satisfied that there is any real danger or disadvantage to either the appellant or his two sons if the appellant’s whereabouts were to become known to the Singapore Government,” wrote the Wellington-based appeal authority.

    It added that the man, having worked variously in Singapore as an aircraft mechanic, hotel cashier and elsewhere had maintained CPF deposits from which he could apply to withdraw funds, since he was already past 62 years old, the minimum age for CPF withdrawal.

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

  • CPF Board’s Inconsistency On Naming Convention Unnecessarily Penalises Public

    CPF Board’s Inconsistency On Naming Convention Unnecessarily Penalises Public

    Dear CPF Board

    When my late Dad passed away in 2014, u sent me a notification on the arrangements of his $$$.

    My online claim was rejected and delayed by months just because i submitted my name wf a BINTE instead of BTE as in NRIC. When i made the necessary call to explain that BINTE is also BTE, yr officer insisted that all legal issues shd be as in NRIC. Ok fine….

    My eldest girl who has just started teaching, earned her 1st CPF recently. I am asking you now. Why on earth is her name spelt just as “S Aniqah Bt Z Ariffin”? Shouldnt her name be “Syafiah Aniqah Binte Zainal Ariffin” as in her LEGAL SINGAPORE NRIC???

    What made u right to change her name?? I believe most Sporeans know Bte=Binte BUT nobody will know what that S meant for my girl’s name!!
    S=Siti? S=Sharifah? S=Sexy?
    Her BT= Bukit Timah?
    Z=Zorro?

    Pls do not gv a template reply that my girl’s name is too long. I have checked wf a Chinese fren bfr i put this up. Her name is “H******** A*** K*** W**** and u have it perfectly fine.

    Do u change a “Tan Ah Teck” into a “T Ah Teck” ??? T=T-rex? T=Transformers?

    I am verrrrrry upset that the Board is doing this cos i painfully rmmbr how it was when you all made me apply all over again fr my late Dad’s CPF thingy.

    What will my girl go thru in future if i choose to keep mum abt this now?? Wouldn she face a prob to claim $$$ when im gone??

    Who are you all to change her name as in NRIC when it comes to legal issues?? We are NOT talking abt a nickname in FB or what.. we are talking abt HER MONEY deducted fm her salary !! It is HER rights !!

    If you think this is a petty issue, look back into yr files on how you rejected my name when BINTE was written instead of BTE… NOW, my girl’s name is TOTALLY changed..

    See you when i step in your office. You’re wasting anthr day of my leave just like when you all did last year..

    Siti Norsheila BTE Mohamed
    (As in NRIC)

     

    Source: Sheila Zack

  • Playing Robin Hood With CPF?

    Playing Robin Hood With CPF?

    Sparring partner and friend Cynical Investor wondered why the more you leave in CPF for your retirement, the less you get proportionately from CPF LIFE payouts from age 65. https://atans1.wordpress.com/2016/0…. Here is what CPF shows us:

    As seen, the FRS is double the BRS but the pay-out is less than double. The ERS is triple the BRS but the payout is less than triple the BRS payout. As a Facebook comment said “I asked the same question. No one knows the answer”. The answer is in the complicated way of allocating interests.

    At age 55, the monies are all moved to Retirement Account earning an interest rate of 4%. The first $60,000 of your account earns an extra 1%. From this year onwards, there is another extra 1% on the first $30,000. The average interest rates earned on the sums over 10 years are as roughly follows

    BRS 4.9%, FRS 4.5%, ERS 4.3%

    Hence the bigger the sum the lower the interest rate earned. The determinant of CPF LIFE payout is the balance at age 65, not at 55. One may start with 2x or 3x BRS but the balance after 10 years is not 2x nor 3x respectively because of those extra 1% interest add-ons. In addition, at age 55, the government credits the Retirement Account with the LIFE Bonus, a flat sum which does not increase if one has more than the BRS. Hence CPF LIFE payouts do not rise proportionately. Why so?

    The answer: like the tax-funded state pension and social entitlement systems of the West but to a much lesser extent, the government is using CPF to do a bit of redistribution, i.e. allocating more to the lower income from the higher income and to the old from the young.

    The amount of interest CPF receives from the Government is roughly 4.1% (calculated from CPF’s Annual Report). Therefore, someone must lose out when those aged above 55 are earning 4.9% (BRS), 4.5% (FRS) or 4.3% (ERS) and furthermore those aged below 55 with combined balances below $60,000 are also earning aggregate interest rates higher than 4.1%.

    This works because those who are below 55 earning lower returns are subsidizing those who are above 55 earning higher returns. Those who have higher combined balances, presumably richer are subsidizing those who have lower combined balances, presumably poorer with the former earning lower returns than the latter. Moreover, LIFE Bonus is paid out of the government budget expenditures which are funded by tax revenues. The high income pays higher taxes but receives the same or slightly lower LIFE Bonus.

    The government is therefore taking from the richer and the younger and giving to the poorer and the older. That is like playing Robin Hood with our CPF monies and taxes just like the European welfare system, albeit just a tiny bit. But is it?

    Not really.

    Redistribution should be based on income not CPF balances. A member with higher CPF balance is not necessarily richer than one with a lower balance because the former may prefer a less costly home and a safer retirement. The latter may max out his CPF to overreach for a bigger home or indulge in property investments. Think of it as a system that is primed for the public and private real estate market and therefore primed to generate financial reserves for the government who ironically is still rather tight-fisted in redistributing the returns from the reserves back to citizens.

    Taken as a whole, CPF is not at all redistributive. It is highly regressive because CPF contribution caps deliver disproportionately higher investable income to the rich. In an era of escalating property prices and low wages, having higher investable income to plow into property and businesses means outsized returns earned compared with those who have to make do mostly with lower returns from CPF. Dividends from financial investments are also mostly untaxed so think of the outcome delivered by CPF as welfare for the rich.

    Source: Chris Kuan