T20 if you have more than 100K rm
T10 if you have more than 200K rm
T05 if you have more than 400K rm
T04 if you have more than 500K rm
T01 if you have more than 1 million rm

(thereabout from epf stats in the annual report based on active members)

B40 if lesser than 15K rm.
So, which group should we listen to in order to get advice on how to ensure adequate retirement funds? the b40 or T05??? 

thanks for the article... this really do look like a typical kopitiam style discussion in malaysia...

we should not be surprised and expect more of these.... more and more opinions, fake news, misinformation, so called expert advice... will be coming...
maybe some hidden agenda to gauge public response?

cos somewhere i read,.... i think from NST... that so called some expert proposed a compromise of 60 years old as the first withdrawal age... can you believe it? as a compromise to World Bank's 70 age limit.
compromise... lol... so that 60 years old can be now a fair age.
(one fell swoop from 50 to 60... and rebranded it as a fair compromise)

Equality in outcome is always desirable, because inequality leads to violence. See... all of history.

Also because there is no equality in opportunity (primary predictor for economic success is still inherited wealth). Improving equality in outcome means equality in opportunity, and allows us to actually have people succeed due to their hardwork and ability rather than because they were privileged. We already do this through publicly funded education for example. But suddenly when it comes to EPF measures we complain when the government trying to adjust.

For me the complaint is that government should do their job and support/assist rather than 'help' people from their retirement savings. But it seems more of the complaints here is targetted at "why these people no money, they must be lazy/stupid".

For the bold part, there was one job offer that I got, which is a 2 years contract base, and because it is a contract, the employer told me if I don't want them to contribute the employer portion to my EPF account, they will pay the money as part of my salary - which is 115% from what is stated there. So we will not get paid less if we have the EPF, but rather if we are not taking the EPF part, we are actually getting the extra contribution as part of our salary. So yea, I would still calculate X + 12/13% as part of the salary, whether the 12/13% will be going to my EPF or not that will be another question.

the more i read from here the more i feel i am a failure
i stay in a medium cost apartment

In fact many pro investors outperformed trust managers 🤦‍♀️ otherwise do you think why

Trust managers still uses old modelling dated back in 90s when the investment landscape changes since then

Go ask yourself why you cannot get 10x when they are many are able to 10x within 5 years

I can tell you that 10x on a stock is doable if you have the right attitude, research and a bit of luck

80% research 15% attitude and fundamentals and 5% luck
Cannot compare housing with agricultural land 🤦‍♀️ one is roof over your head which doesn’t any revenue to grow while latter resource is to grow hence better returns

haha... I also know only of that atok with such longevity...

then all the more reasons to change it to 90 or 100.... cos naturally not many will survive past that, which means it is a non-issue to up the limit also.

Allows the elderly to keep contributing will ensure those who still need to work past 75 have their "fresh" savings secure from scams... pity them also rite? they still had to work at the age, so don't lar pull half rug under them while they are working...

added side benefit: facilitates wealth transfer to descendants outside the traditional will and probate system.