Why Singaporeans Cannot Save Enough In Our CPF: Learning From the IPS Forum

Why are Singaporeans unable to save in our CPF? Why is it that we contribute 37% of our wages into CPF, but the CPF is still not enough for our needs?

Last week, some speakers gave presentations at the Forum on CPF and Retirement Adequacy (organised by the Institute of Policy Studies). Their presentations will give you a very good insight as to why the CPF is inasequate for Singaporeans’ retirement and in the problems highlighted, you can see the solutions inherent in them as well.

Associate Professor Tan Ern Ser illustrated that up to 70% of the elderly in Singapore have CPF.

Screenshot (22)_edited

However, he then highlighted how the CPF savings is able to provide for retirement for only a very low 4% to 7% of the elderly in Singapore. A/Prof Tan asked then asked how even though the elderly might “have CPF, but (do they have) insufficient CPF savings to serve as (a) “source of income”?”

Screenshot (23)_edited

But why our our CPF funds inadequate? Indeed, Ms Wong Su-Yen then pointed out how in the Melbourne Mercer Global Pension Index 2013, Singaporeans have been shown to have one of the least adequate pension in the world. She highlighted how a minimum pension level of 30% of national earnings would be the minimum required to alleviate poverty, but in Singapore, the CPF provides only 10%, which means that most Singaporeans would retire with payouts at below poverty level.

Screenshot (24)_edited

In fact, yesterday, I had calculated how 50% of Singaporeans would have less than $55,000 in our CPF and would only be able to get a CPF payout of $425 every month. This is significantly lower than (or only one-third of) the $1,200 that the government has calculated a lower-middle income family would need to have a basic standard of living. If half of Singaporeans have to retire on less than $425, it is clear that the majority of Singaporeans are retiring at below poverty level.

Singaporeans Have Only $55,000 In Our CPF! 90% Cannot Even Meet The CPF Minimum Sum!

In fact, the problem is compounded by how the pension system in Singapore relies solely on the CPF, whereas in other countries, there is a diversification of sources for retirement savings, and which allows for a higher accumulation of pension funds.

Screenshot (25)_edited

Ms Wong went on to highlight that the two key reasons why the CPF is inadequate. First, the CPF is over-invested in very low-risk deposits. 72% of the CPF is invested in very low-risk deposits while other countries would only invest up to 12% in similar deposits, and would instead invest 49% to 69% of the pension funds in higher risk equities, to earn higher returns for the pension funds and increase adequacy.

Screenshot (26)_edited

The government might claim that the current “CPF system”, where the government invests our CPF in low-risk government bonds and then take these bonds to invest in higher risk investments “has worked well and … protected members from risk.” The government claims that this “allows the GIC (to take on the risk and) to invest for the long term, including investing in riskier assets like equities, real estate and private equity.” But the evidence from other international pension funds have shown that they are very capable of taking on the higher risks by themselves, and returning the interests earned back to their citizens. So, why does the Singapore government act contrary?

In fact, Prof Mukul G. Asher has said that, “Singapore’s method of investing the balances meant for retirement financing is contrary to best international practices concerning pension fund management, and have the potential to generate high political risk. Such concentration of savings in the hands of non-transparent, non-accountable agencies also distorts the savings investment process and could lead to inefficiencies in the structure of asset returns. The development of the financial and capital markets may also be adversely affected due to such concentration of savings, and due to the use of CPF as a substitute for mortgage financing. The method, however, is consistent with Singapore’s mono-centric power structure, and strong tendency towards social engineering and control.”

Second, the Singapore government charges the highest costs to manage our CPF, which “erode additional returns” and reduces what is returned to our pension funds. Which begs the question – why does the government charges the highest costs for managing funds invested in the lowest risks?

Screenshot (27)_edited

Ms Wong also highlighted how “Individuals are not adequately saving … (because a) sizeable portion (of the lack of retirement savings is) attribute to housing.” Indeed, this was what Associate Professor Lum Sau Kim also pointed out. She illustrated how the annual CPF withdrawals to pay for housing loans have been increasing since the 1960s, which has resulted in “low cash balances” inside the CPF which has “constrained retirement adequacy”.

Annual CPF Withdrawals 1960 to 2013

Professor Joseph Cherian also brought up an interesting chart to show how the HDB flat starts losing its value after Year-66 and eventually has zero value. Indeed, thanks to a question by the Worker’s Party Gerald Giam, we now know that “the value of the flats will be zero at the end of their 99-year lease” and “Like all leasehold properties, HDB flats will revert to HDB, the landowner, upon expiry of their leases.”

Screenshot (29)_edited

In fact, the National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wah had also admitted earlier this month that the government “controls the construction programmes” and “sets the prices for the HDB flats”. As such, when housing loans sap up a large portion of our CPF, so much so that Singaporeans are not able to save enough in our CPF to retire, then is it not clear that the government has over-priced the HDB flats?

Manpower Minister Tan Chuan-Jin has also revealed earlier this month that, “Among members who turned 55 years old over the past five years and had used CPF monies to purchase HDB flats, an average of 55% of their OA savings had been withdrawn to finance their flats at age 55.” For Singaporeans who had used their CPF to buy private property, this could be twice as high.

If so, from the above statistics, is it not clear that:

  1. First, Singaporeans’ CPF is earning too low returns.
  2. Second, coupled with the low returns on the CPF, the high flat prices further eats into the declining value of the CPF.

If so, these are the questions we have to ask:

  1. Who controls how our CPF is invested and how much returns to give on our CPF?
  2. Who controls the housing prices?

Why are they not letting us grow our CPF?

Mr Alfred Chia also highlighted how the CPF Investment Scheme had failed because these schemes were introduced “very close to when the markets were at its peak”, thus when the market fell right after, losses were made. (Was it bad policy introduction timing, or?)

Screenshot (30)_edited

This explained why 85% of CPF members’ investment returns were less than 2.5%.

Screenshot (31)_edited

Mr Chia then illustrated how if a Singaporean wants to retire on $3,000 every month (or $5,596 in 25 years’ time), he/she would need to save $1.24 million at retirement.

Screenshot (32)_edited

He explained that this means that at the current CPF interest of 2.5%, a person would need to save $2,823 every month for the next 25 years. This would mean that a person would have to earn more than $7,000 every month in order to do so! However, less than 10% of Singaporeans are able to earn more than $7,000 currently!

Screenshot (33)_edited

However, A/Prof Tan had shown that only 17% or more elderly Singaporeans spend more than $2,000 every month, so the magnitude of this problem is reduced. However, this still doesn’t negate the problem. Where half of Singaporeans are only able to withdraw $425, this is simply inadequate for the majority of Singaporeans. This also reveals that at current wages, Singaporeans would simply not be able to save enough in our CPF for retirement. Including for the current uses of the CPF, the minimum that Singaporeans would need to earn would be at least $3,000 or $4,000 to be able to save adequately in our CPF for retirement!

Screenshot (42)_edited

AWARE’s Vivienne Wee had also posed a question at the forum, where she commented that 40% of older women are not able to get employment and which are not able to give them enough CPF. She opined that this is why there are many women are not able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum, because they do not come under the scheme. Associate Professor Kalyani Mehta agreed that women are under-protected by the CPF and shared that the CPF system is not universal but this has not been acknowledged.

Indeed, there is a gender imbalance in the CPF system, in how women are able to save significantly less in the CPF than men (even though both are unable to save adequately).

Screenshot (34)_edited

And women also earn significantly lower wages than men (even though both have seen stagnant wages over the past 2 decades).

Screenshot (36)_edited

A/Prof Tan had also highlighted how, “Female and older seniors are likely to be in low-paying jobs and doing less well financially.”

When seen in light of these problems, it is thus perhaps disturbing that both the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance and the Manpower Minister had claimed that the CPF is aimed only at providing for basic retirement needs. The Deputy Prime Minister went further to say that the government has been very clear with this all along and that the CPF is not intended to provide for the full retirement needs for Singaporeans.

However, where the CPF is only adequate for 4% to 7% of Singaporeans, and where up to 80% of the elderly have to thus rely on their children, is it not unsustainable? Already, Singaporeans are earning stagnant wages, and compounded by the stagnant CPF interest rates and ever-increasing housing prices, the real value of Singaporeans’ CPF have been so eroded that it can be said to have lost its purpose – this is quite clearly affirmed by how the CPF is only adequate for 4% to 7% of Singaporeans and is one of the least adequate pension funds in the world.

It is perhaps very disturbing if the government chooses not to acknowledge this fact but would bypass the existence of such problems, to claim the validity of the current CPF system. It might be perhaps disappointing for the speakers and participants at the forum.

The problems were highlighted, but so were the solutions. If the government has any political will to fix the system (instead of the opposition), we might actually make some headway in reforming the CPF system to bring about adequacy for Singaporeans’ retirement.

Prof Cherian had summarised what he thought was the current problems with the current CPF system.

Screenshot (37)_edited

Ms Wong had proposed some plausible solutions.

Screenshot (39)_edited

Mr Donald Low advocated for transparency and independence of the CPF.

Screenshot (40)_edited

Perhaps the government should also take a leaf out of Mr Chia’s book, where he advocated looking long term when investing. As such, the government cannot continue the fear-mongering that they are giving us short-term “secure” interests, but should instead plan long term for higher returns for Singaporeans. As Prof Cherian had wisely put, “You cannot let people feeling worse-off because of an (economic) downturn. You have to plan long term.” As yet, the government has still not wanted to let Singaporeans know the GIC’s returns since its inception in 1981 (the CPF is invested in the GIC).

Screenshot (44)_edited

And finally, A/Prof Mehta affirmed the values that “Retirement adequacy has to be debated in the context of these dynamic economic, social and health trends – not in isolation or from the economic/financial perspective ONLY.”

Screenshot (41)_edited

So, you see, Singaporeans know what the problems of the CPF are. We know the solutions too. The question isn’t about whether we know the problems, but whether there is political will and the boldness to resolve these issues and bring about a reform to the CPF to bring about a betterment of Singaporeans.

Have we seen the courage to make the bold changes required for our CPF been shown by the government so far?

Instead, what we have seen is how the government continues to champion the CPF Minimum Sum and admonishes Singaporeans for not working hard enough to meet this CPF Minimum Sum. But when you realise how the government has been increasing the CPF Minimum Sum at a much faster rate than how we are able to save in our CPF, then you will see that something is really wrong here.

Where over the past 20 years, the average net CPF balance that Singaporeans have inside our CPF is continuously lower than the CPF Minimum Sum set by the government, the government would know that the large majority of Singaporeans simply do not have enough to even meet the CPF Minimum Sum! Then, why do they keep increasing the CPF Minimum Sum, and not only that, but increase it at a faster rate!

CPF Minimum Sum Grows Faster Than the CPF Itself

I had also asked the Manpower Minister if the government would consider increasing the wages of Singaporeans and the CPF interest rates. However, the government bypassed these questions.

Where is the political will to enact the changes necessary to improve our CPF, to protect Singaporeans?

Do you see it?

3rd Edition Of The #ReturnOurCPF Event: Why Singaporeans Cannot Retire Because Of The HDB

It is perhaps time to stop sitting back. The CPF is our hard-earned money but we no longer know what is going on with it, let alone know if it is still our money. If we don’t take a stand and demand for answers, our CPF might soon be taken away from our hands and we wouldn’t even know it, until it hits us.

On 23 August, we will be organising the third edition of the #ReturnOurCPF event. In the first edition on June 7, we revealed to you the truths that the government has finally admitted to how they are using our CPF to invest in the GIC. In the second edition on 12 July, we exposed further truths about the exact number of Singaporeans who were not able to meet the CPF Minimum Sum.

Join us at the third edition and take a stand. We know the problems to the CPF, and we know the solutions. But if the government refuses to acknowledge these but chooses to continue telling only their version of the story, then it is time we make our voices heard. It is time we let them know that we know what they are doing and will no longer allow them to put a blindfold around our eyes.

On 23 August, we will see you at Hong Lim Park. Let’s come together, be united and speak for change, for the better for our lives, and our children’s.

You can join the Facebook event page here.

Also, my first court case will be held on 18 September 2014, at 10.00am. It will be a full-day hearing.

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Template with Text edited with Title

Return Our CPF 3 Poster Template with Text edited with Title@Chinese


  1. sintel

    generally,country’s wealth should be returned to the people, such as basic pension payment, Instead of their own rulers share. the prime minister did not have retirement issues due to 10 million annual salary he got , but people did not get the plan to share in the national interest, an extremely wrong system, millions of people become the biggest victims

  2. Mustafa aka Soapian

    So the title is, is the CPF enough for our retirement. Of course not enough lah if you want to have a good and comfortable life. The question for Roy is, what is the better alternative to the minimum sum? You propose increase wages, how do you propose doing that? Is there any negative impact and if there is how do you propose to counter them? You are busy at churning all those numbers and charts which not all can understand and asking questions but can you to be equally fair able to answer questions posed to you?

    • I agree with Mustafa

      Roy churns out a lot of numbers and charts.
      Let me offer an alternative.
      If you want your CPF money at 55 years old …. vote Opposition.
      If you want ever “evolving” rules about when-if you will ever see your CPF money again … vote PAP.
      It really is that simple.

      • mustafa aka soapian

        Dear I agree with mustafa other alternative
        If you want your CPF at 55 … vote opposition …. are you sure? … so far they have been quiet about this in parliament
        If you want the CPF scheme to be modified so that growing seniors will not put a burden to the younger generation … vote PAP
        It is really that simple.
        Which will you choose?

    • supporter

      Roy is just a young thinker, better than Prime Lee who did nothing everyday x 365 days x 10 years , he set a model for selfish, destroyed our hope,

    • @ mustafa aka soapian

      “Which will you choose?”

      I am pro choice.
      I want my CPF back at 55.
      I want to make my own choices without PAP Millionaires lording over me.
      And it’s obvious I will have to vote Opposition to get what I want.
      It’s also obvious that PAP is anti-choice.

  3. Eddie

    There are several WP members in Parliament. We also have non-elected MPs. How come such data on CPF and debate are not done in Parliament? This is an important national issue.

    Roy is acting as the Nelson Mandela of Spore….the Voice of Conscience on CPF.

    • mustafa aka soapian

      Perhaps the opposition knows better than to ask such questions in parliament. To ask a questions like “how much does the GIC make from our CPF monies” shows ones ignorance on how the economy and the financial system works. Do you think the oppoistion wants to look stupid in parliament? To ask how much does the GIC makes on its overall investments over say 5 or 10 years would be a better questions. Such data should be readily available. Of course in Roy’s case its easier to ask questions rather than answering questions posed to him. So far I have not seen him answer any of my questions.

      • may

        to mustafa aka soapian,
        as long as no more Lee Kuan Yew & Lee Hsien Loong, it will be nice.
        and you are hard to feel Roy if you still have job, he lost everything, is any system in Singapore to protect those kind of unfortunate people?

        他现在一无所有, 你们有那个制度保障这一类不幸的人呢 ?

    • @ mustafa aka soapian

      I agree with mustafa that the Workers’ Party has not been asking these types of questions.
      Clearly we will need to throw our support behind the other parties like SDP and Chee Soon Juan.

    • uncle lim

      @ Eddie
      WP, LTK had brought the CPF & CPF Retirements matter up in the parliment.
      other opposition parties held forums or conference with the reporters. Regards similar issues. Pls check it out in youth tube.

  4. android dbz live wallpaper

    Navigating through the interface is absolutely accessible in both account and mural
    modes, acknowledgment to the on-screen QWERTY keyboard and the accelerometer allows these two angle to be afflicted with ease.
    This can enable customers of Android os based programs to be able to bring up to date individual parts of the
    particular Android mobile phone method even when his or her provider hasn’t
    gone after an even more moderen label of Android os.
    In the case of your internet site, if you were to take a seat
    and write five hundred words of educational content you would find that certain words naturally
    creep into the article and appear many times.

  5. one Witnesses

    Over the past 50 years, the courts is Lee Kuan Yew’s backyard ,even he corrupt of Temasek Holdings , still is champion . making Singapore is a paradise for the rich and a hell for the poor

  6. Dettol

    Who We Are

    Human Rights Watch is a nonprofit, nongovernmental human rights organization made up of roughly 400 staff members around the globe. Its staff consists of human rights professionals including country experts, lawyers, journalists, and academics of diverse backgrounds and nationalities. Established in 1978, Human Rights Watch is known for its accurate fact-finding, impartial reporting, effective use of media, and targeted advocacy, often in partnership with local human rights groups. Each year, Human Rights Watch publishes more than 100 reports and briefings on human rights conditions in some 90 countries, generating extensive coverage in local and international media. With the leverage this brings, Human Rights Watch meets with governments, the United Nations, regional groups like the African Union and the European Union, financial institutions, and corporations to press for changes in policy and practice that promote human rights and justice around the world.
    Our Advisors:

    Link to Board of Directors
    Link to Council Leadership
    Link to Advisory Committees
    Senior Management
    Kenneth Roth, Executive Director
    Michele Alexander, Deputy Executive Director, Development and Global Initiatives
    Carroll Bogert, Deputy Executive Director, External Relations
    Iain Levine, Deputy Executive Director, Program
    Chuck Lustig, Deputy Executive Director, Operations
    Walid Ayoub, Information Technology Director
    Pierre Bairin, Media Director
    Clive Baldwin, Senior Legal Advisor
    Emma Daly, Communications Director
    Alan S. Feldstein, General Counsel for Operations
    Barbara Guglielmo, Finance and Administration Director
    Peggy Hicks, Global Advocacy Director
    Stephen Northfield, Digital Director
    Dinah PoKempner, General Counsel
    Babatunde Olugboji, Deputy Program Director
    Tom Porteous, Deputy Program Director
    Aisling Reidy, Senior Legal Advisor
    James Ross, Legal & Policy Director
    Joe Saunders, Deputy Program Director
    Frances Sinha, Human Resources Director
    Christine Squires, Managing Director for North America, Development and Outreach
    Jasmine Herlt, Managing Director, Development and Outreach
    Miriam Mahlow, Managing Director, Development and Outreach
    Elizabeth Seuling, Senior Director, Foundations and Program Liaison Office
    Program Directors

    Brad Adams, Asia
    Joseph Amon, Health and Human Rights
    Daniel Bekele, Africa
    Shantha Rau Barriga, Disability Rights
    Peter Bouckaert, Emergencies
    Zama Coursen-Neff, Children’s Rights
    Richard Dicker, International Justice
    Bill Frelick, Refugees
    Arvind Ganesan, Business & Human Rights
    Liesl Gerntholtz, Women’s Rights
    Steve Goose, Arms
    Alison Parker, United States
    Graeme Reid, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Rights
    José Miguel Vivanco, Americas
    Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East & North Africa
    Hugh Williamson, Europe & Central Asia
    Advocacy Directors

    Philippe Bolopion, United Nations
    Maria Laura Carineu, Brazil
    Kanae Doi, Japan
    Jean-Marie Fardeau,France
    Meenakshi Ganguly, South Asia
    Tiseke Kasambala, South Africa
    Lotte Leicht, European Union
    Sarah Margon, Washington, DC, Acting
    David Mepham, United Kingdom
    Wenzel Michalski, Germany
    Elaine Pearson, Australia
    Juliette de Rivero, Geneva

    Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people worldwide. We scrupulously investigate abuses, expose the facts widely, and pressure those with power to respect rights and secure justice. Human Rights Watch is an independent, international organization that works as part of a vibrant movement to uphold human dignity and advance the cause of human rights for all.

    COMMITTED TO OUR MISSION OF DEFENDING HUMAN RIGHTS WORLDWIDE. Our work is guided by international human rights and humanitarian law and respect for the dignity of each human being.

    INDEPENDENT. To ensure our independence, we do not accept government funds, directly or indirectly, or support from any private funder that could compromise our objectivity and independence. We do not embrace political causes, are non-partisan, and maintain neutrality in armed conflict.

    FACTUAL, ACCURATE, AND ETHICAL IN OUR FACT-FINDING. We are committed to maintaining high standards of accuracy and fairness, including by seeking out multiple perspectives to develop an in- depth, analytic understanding of events. We recognize a particular responsibility for the victims and witnesses who have shared their experiences with us.

    ACTIVELY FOCUSED ON IMPACT. We succeed only when our actions lead to positive and sustainable change. We are never complacent, always on the lookout for new opportunities to advance our cause. We also are committed to working on difficult situations, where long-term attention is required for meaningful impact.

    SUPPORTIVE OF A DIVERSE AND VIBRANT INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS MOVEMENT AND MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL PARTNERSHIPS. We work closely with a broad range of local and international civil society actors to maximize our impact. We speak out against attacks on civil society and defend the political space within which the broader human rights movement operates.

    Human Rights Watch Names New Board Co-chairs
    Two leading human rights supporters will co-chair the board of Human Rights Watch beginning in October 2013. Joel Motley, managing director at Public Capital Advisors, and Hassan Elmasry, managing partner at Independent Franchise Partners, will succeed board chair James F. Hoge, Jr. Read more >>

    What they say about Human Rights Watch >>

    Top Rated – Charity Navigator
    In earning Charity Navigator’s highest four star rating, Human Rights Watch has demonstrated exceptional financial health in its efforts to manage and grow its finances in the most fiscally responsible way possible. Review our rating.

  7. Temasek Holdings belongs Singaporean

    we want to focus on: Temasek’s investment fund comes from the people’s cpf, therefor Temasek Holdings belongs people, ok !

  8. sabina

    Even the land HDB owns are forcefully and cheaply acquired from our forefathers. The PAP got the cheek to sell us the flat at king’s ransom. PUI

  9. Ivan Ho

    Now you see why SG needs to reform both CPF & MOM!
    1) CPFB is under MOM
    2) http://m.mom.gov.sg/employment-practices/employment-rights-conditions/cpf/Pages/default.aspx
    Singapore’s social safety net comprises the
    following four pillars:
    Central Provident Fund: The Central
    Provident Fund (CPF) enables working
    Singaporeans to set aside funds for
    Home ownership: Public housing helps
    Singaporeans own long-term assets that can
    be monetised upon retirement;
    Healthcare subsidies and the “3Ms”: The
    Medisave, MediShield and Medifund
    schemes provide a sustainable healthcare
    system for all Singaporeans.
    Workfare: The Workfare Income Supplement
    scheme and the Workfare Training Support
    scheme encourages older, low-wage workers
    to continue working, while helping to meet
    their retirement and medical needs.

    All the above will not help the retirees retire adequately if nothing revolutionary is done now to fix it!

  10. Mr. Poh

    @ Since Prime Lee took millions annual salary, what did he do every day? ———– eating, singing, suing, overseas sightseeing, sometimes waived to us on TV, that is all.

  11. Margaret Thatcher

    Good morning Roy,
    ” I am in politics because of the conflict between good and evil, and I believe that in the end good will triumph.
    … …
    Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there is error, may we bring truth. Where there is doubt, may we bring faith. And where there is despair, may we bring hope.”
    Margaret Thatcher Back you ! Appreciate you !! Love you !!!

    • The Oracle

      Actually, Margaret Thatcher was a right wing politician who would have called Roy a “stupid boy”!

      One of her best quotes:
      “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples’ money.”

      • We Love PAP

        The good thing about PAPism is that Singaporeans’ money and endurance for pain is inexhaustible.

      • The Oracle

        If Roy had his way he would soon spend our national savings on a socialist utopia and you’ll then see just how quickly our money is exhaustible.

      • We Love PAP

        If Ho Ching and Temasek have their way;
        – all our reserves would be invested in foreign companies and foreign banks.
        – and very little will be invested in Singaporeans

  12. supporter

    to The Oracle,
    “socialist utopia” ??????????????????
    Your teeth toxic, Look, this is a snake in Singapore! He wants to bite you, they release venom ! Turn over his words so familiar ah, many times this equation is useful before. Usually they want to assassinate a man, first with this equation. but we support Roy , we want prime lee step down ! we want our cpf back !

  13. Pingback: 50 Truths Singaporeans Finally Know About Our CPF on Singapore’s 50th Birthday | The Heart Truths
  14. Joach Falken

    I do not understand the figures:
    For example, if someone puts up 36% of his/her income to CPF for 27years, with neither a real interest nor real economic growth during that period, that would add to a 10 annual incomes. Earlier income and CPF provisions may offset other negative impacts. If working to an age with a remaing life exoextation of 20 years (which is much), that should allow for 50% replacement rate even before taxesand deductions (and wage income is indeed strongly reduced by deductions, including for CPF).
    So the lower figures obviously reflect withdrawals, often for home purchase. But the same persons will be able to receive cash from their property at age, so also be able to sustain a reasonabke share of their standard of living. Unless they want to give it to their siblings as inheritence. As children will usually have own property by around 50 (when their parent die), that is of less importance, however.
    So is there a flaw in considerations?

  15. 天龙八部开私服一条龙服务

    天龙八部开私服一条龙服务 http://www.e7if.com/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s