The CPF sounds pretty clever. It covers a major individual cost and need (retirement, medical, housing) instead of just throwing it into a tax. It makes the government money. This sounds like a win win kind of policy.
To me it sounds like a tax structured in a strange way so it doesn't obviously read as a tax.
It's essentially a forced loan to the government at subpar rates. The "tax" is the delta between what the government pays out for the bonds vs what a bond of equivalent risk in the free market would have paid.
The magnitude of the investment also probably makes it impractical for anyone but the very wealthy to retire before that starts paying out. Most other countries have lower rates on their retirement schemes, which makes it feasible for more people to live on their savings for a few years before the government retirement scheme kicks in. E.g. in the US it's pretty feasible for the upper middle/lower upper classes to retire a few years before Social Security kicks in, especially if they're willing to live frugally.
That's partially true. 37% contribution of pay, earmarked for personal welfare expenses (housing/healthcare/retirement), basically covers 60% of a typical state budget.
But these funds aren't pooled like taxes. Typically the top 25% pay something like 80% of the income taxes. And the recipient of that tax revenue is typically the bottom 50% who get means-tested welfare benefits. In the Singaporean model it seems that the CPF funds of 37% are not pooled but allocated to personal accounts.
In other words it's a redistribution in-time (from early to late) and in-type (general income to housing/healthcare/retirement expenses), but to the same person.
Whereas a tax is typically a redistribution in the same time period, but to different persons, and can be earmarked to whatever.
I'd certainly prefer a 37% tax earmarked to me only (with modest ROI) + 10% income taxes + 0% cap gains, than the 40% tax I pay (west-europe) on my income which is wholly redistributed to others + 36% cap gains if I invest the remainder.
No because in other similar countries like the example I gave of mine, that money is taxed and goes to another person. There is no opportunity cost.
In Singapore it's 'taxed' and earmarked to you, and then generates a very modest ROI. Yes there is an opportunity cost versus a place like Dubai that has 0% tax. But not compared to a similar welfare state that puts a 40% tax and you lose that money forever.
>It's essentially a forced loan to the government at subpar rates. The "tax" is the delta between what the government pays out for the bonds vs what a bond of equivalent risk in the free market would have paid.
It’s almost impossible for an upper middle class couple to retire in the US before their 65 unless they have some type of government provided or private company provided health insurance like teachers, police officers, military etc.
It’s about $25K a year for a decent plan which is doable. But you have to hope that Republicans - and yes this is a political issue - don’t successfully kill the ACA and make it impossible to get insurance at any cost if you have a pre-existing condition. If you are old - you will develop a pre-existing condition.
My parents are 83 and 81 and retired at 57/55. But my mom was a teacher who still gets benefits through the government and my dad gets benefits from the one factory that didn’t shut down in our hometown.
I’m 51 and even if I could retire early financially, I wouldn’t do it and stay in the US. Play the smallest fiddle for us. I “retired my wife” at 44 in 2020 8 years into our marriage when I did a slight transition to an industry where remote work with travel is the norm (cloud consulting + app dev) and we have traveled a lot including doing stints as “digital nomads”.
We are staying in one of the countries that we might retire to as a Plan B for six weeks starting next week.
Even now that we moved to state tax free Florida and my wife hasn’t had to work in six years, she keeps a current CDL because she can get a job as a school bus driver easily for the benefits and someone will pay me for independent consulting if I lose my job.
The FIRE community and my own personal situation prove you very, very wrong. It's absolutely possible for a upper middle class family to retire in their 50s, even in their 40s, if they live frugally.
FIRE doesn't depend on having a tech job. Its all about income to expense ratio. Planning for medical events is something that gets talked to death in these communities.
A lot of people are often surprised at how non-frugal their lifestyles are. I'm not suggesting that people living on $50k/year aren't already frugal, but yeah, there's definitely people who take out car loans, take out mortgages for the full amount they were approved for, and all sorts of random things like buying chicken parts instead of whole chickens, buying small grocery store containers instead of bulk pricing for shelf-stable items, keeping your speed down to save gas, etc.
You really just need to build an innate understanding that the hedonic treadmill doesn't make you happier long-term and develop a resolution to get your expenses down and stay disciplined about it.
I know several people with normie jobs (not tech related or government) and normie lifestyles that saved up enough money to never need to work again by 50 while still maintaining their lifestyle. Most still work because they have no idea what to do with their time even though they don’t need to work anymore.
You can easily derive that this is possible from the median household finance statistics published by BLS, never mind the upper class. It isn’t that hard if you care to do it.
I absolutely have health insurance, the most expensive available on my state. That doesn't protect me 100%, but what health insurance (including the ones available at most companies) does?
People who have poor money management skills believe that FIRE=Ramen and no health insurance... In fact, it's about getting a 30K car (the one I bought new 3 years ago) instead a 70K car despite having the money.
you don't need to eat ramen. there are many cost effective options out there: oatmeal, beans, rice, you could grow your own fruits and vegetables, etc.
and as for the medical disaster: heart attack and stroke are actually preventable with a plant based diet (keep your LDL under 80 and you'll vastly decrease your chance of a heart attack). i know a lot of people will hate on that, but those are the facts and any evidence based nutritionist can tell you this.
And health insurance as soon as the ACA is gutted and you have a pre existing condition? Sure I could retire to Costa Rica or Panama. One of those are a plan B and we will be in CR for six weeks and we are both learning Spanish - I am. decent at it.
I bet you also your idea of upper middle class is not statistically valid.
Costa Rica is on my retirement shortlist. I really like it there and have taken the family for vacation a couple times. I've driven the whole country pretty much North to South. Puerto Jimenez is one of my favorite places but it's very rural. There's some nice areas an hour or two North of San Jose as well. I've met a handful of US families that, when the pandemic hit, just sold everything they owned and moved to Costa Rica. As far as central america goes Costa Rica is a bright spot of stability and like a functioning government. I live in Dallas so pretty much have to know a little Spanish but there isn't much of a language barrier at all. You could do a lot worse than Costa Rica.
Were you around and trying to get health insurance before 2012? I was. The startup I worked for shut down and while I had a well paying contract lined up literally the next week, I couldn’t get health insurance at any price because of a pre-existing condition even though at the time, I was a part time fitness instructor and I had just gotten through running my first (and last) two half marathons.
If you are betting on the stability of the US health care system outside of employer funded health care, that is a monumentally stupid bet with one party actively trying to kill the ACA.
The thing is... no one has anything that I want to buy. I don't mean this in an elitist way, but more of a monk way. Like, I don't understand status and keeping up with people.
Ego is truly wild. I had one last bastion of ego that echoes a bit. It was my ability to code the machine. Im that guy that really loves to code. It fills me with joy in ways that I cant describe. It was the only status I really had... until AI.
AI has freed me.
I am free to fully enjoy life as a nut case. Its fantastic as im living a second childhood right now.
Statistics! Can a person below the median income afford to retire early? The answer is a resounding no. Can a person the top 10th percentile (upper middle class) afford to retire early? Yes.
So the top 10% is a household income of $250K and most of those couples didn’t reach that until their 40s. They aren’t making $225K as an L5 at 25 years old like a former intern/new grad I mentored when I was at BigTech
Most software developers won’t even see above $160K inflation adjusted during their career. Most work in second tier cities in the “enterprise”z.
there are still tribes in the amazon that have very little money, like the hazda. they may not call it retirement but they don't need to go to the office everyday.
Serious question, what makes us so addicted and dependent to money that we can't imagine any way of life without a lot of it?
Here is the crazy thing, I went carnivore after I retired because one thread that worried me about shitty insurance is the risk. Now, I'm pretty sure if I only eat meat and work-out, then I might not even need insurance. Like, my labs are phenomenal.
By taking away the fear and the addiction, I've got a level of calm and control of my life that makes me realize the "modern world" is deeply sick.
Without digging into this too far, I do think it’s possible but it does require starting early and sticking to the plan. I’m not one of those people, but I know people who are.
The mean household income for the 4th quintile is 115k a year. The mean of the middle quintile is 70k. There’s a theoretical 45k a year spread if you earn like the 4th quintile and spend like the 3rd (evidently possible since a lot of people live in the 3rd quintile).
Even ignoring compound interest, if you can hit that 4th quintile at 30 and you lose half the spread to taxes, by 55 you have 25 years of saving 22.5k/year for 562.5k in savings.
It’s probably not the most fun thing, but I do think it’s doable.
The median household income doesn’t earn the median wage every year from when they started working. That’s just a snapshot and it’s highly correlated with age. I’m 51, I damn sure couldn’t afford to max out my 401K. That means I was 25 in 1999. I definitely could afford to max out my 401K - which was then $10K a year - when I was making $35K a year.
Especially when new grads are coming out now with student loan debt.
Does that answer the question about what happens when the ACA is gutted and you can’t get insurance at any price with a pre-existing condition?
That happened to me right before the ACA went into affect. I was engaged to my now wife and we moved our marriage up early so I could get on her insurance.
https://mrmoneymustache.com/2017/11/05/when-your-shitty-heal...
Regarding ACA
>My family’s monthly health insurance premium, which had already more than doubled in the last few years to $674 per month, was going up a further 44% for the coming year. For no good reason, other than perhaps the the current government’s attempts to kill off the Affordable Care Act. (By cutting various parts of the structure, the insurance market becomes less stable and predictable, and thus more expensive).
How do you "work part time" when you need medical care to GET WELL ENOUGH to be able to work again? I.e. if you are in a serious car accident with a broken leg and broken arm, ain't no one hiring you just to let you sit around and get free health care.
And again, you’re assuming that insurance companies won’t just flee the exchange when it’s not profitable because only sick people sign up because of prices. It’s called the “death spiral”. Originally that was suppose to be prevented by subsidies that Republicans killed.
So Texas also doesn’t have income tax but my siblings house (assessed at a lower value than mine) is assessed property tax almost triple wha mine is, dwarfing my state income tax plus property tax. Not sure about Florida - YMMV.
My property taxes are $3000 a year. They were around $7K a year before we moved. We also downsized to a two bedroom condo -1200 square feet - from a 3500 square foot house in the most expensive county in GA (Forsyth) after my step son graduated in 2020 and after Covid. We sold our house for twice what we had it built for 8 years earlier and bought our condo for the same price as we paid for our house in 2016.
Florida - especially when you live in the same county as DisneyWorld - is heavily subsidized by tourism
Is it possible to get insurance as an expat living in a foreign country, yet spend time in the states? Would that be a good coverage for retirees that want to split time between US and other countries?
For curiosity's sake, what exactly do you think Republicans will do to "kill the ACA"? I doubt they're going to introduce a bill that revokes the ACA in its entirety. They killed the mandate almost a decade ago and the marketplace healthcare plans have continued to limp along, depending on the state. What's next?
It’s simple. One of the original tenants of the ACA was to provide subsidies for most people earning up to what would be the upper middle class between this and the insurance mandates, it would prevent the death spiral where only the sick would sign up for it, making the cost go up until it was almost unaffordable to anyone and unprofitable for the insurance companies making them leave the exchange.
The first blow was when the Supreme Court killed the mandates. The second blow just happened when they killed the subsidies last year.
Not if the ACA continues its current “death spiral” where only the sick sign up making the premiums go up to the point where insurance companies just leave the plan.
Until the Republican Party finally succeeds at gutting the ACA or make it so bad that insurers wing cover it.
Let’s say you maxed out your HSA for 20 years and have $200K - that can be wiped out with one uncovered major medical incident the HSA max is relatively low.
If you accept cancer as a death sentence, you're an idiot. I had cancer at age 41. If I left it untreated, sure I'd be dead, probably by age 43. But I'm not an idiot, I had good health insurance, I was treated, and now that health event is over twenty years in the past.
Had I self-funded with a (non-existent) nest egg, I would still be in debt over $600k. Instead, my insurance had to deal with that...
What are you smoking? My parents are in their 80s, both 15+ and 20+ years cancer free. At least in my mom's case (colon), not having surgery + chemo probably WOULD have been a death sentence. In Canada, their total out-of-pocket costs (other than transportation to/from the hospital) was like $15 for some painkillers.
> The magnitude of the investment also probably makes it impractical for anyone but the very wealthy to retire before that starts paying out...
But they can pull out for housing right? That's an enormous portion of most people's expenses. If I didn't have to worry about housing, I could be living large on less than half of my salary, I would certainly semi-retire at least.
Sort of. So far as I can tell, you can withdraw to buy housing but I don’t think you can pay rent out of it.
The loans are also 75% max loan-to-value so I think until you can get 25% of the purchase price in your account you have to pay CPF and rent (or live with family).
Also, not an economist, but I suspect the forced savings has a wildly inflationary effect on housing prices. You can’t do much else with the money until you retire, so I would guess the price of housing rises up to match the forced savings rate.
> the forced savings has a wildly inflationary effect on housing prices
Housing prices are inflationary independent of CPF, because flats in Singapore are powerful investment vehicles. For HDB flats, however, there is means-testing and rebates to the amount of ~50%, sufficient for anyone on the 30th percentile and above to afford.
Since the government controls the supplies of HDBs, it controls the price inflation.
So it would be more accurate to say “housing prices are inflationary because the government wants them to be”.
Yet this introduces a ton of new problems as well. In order to keep them “good investments” it becomes ever increasing prices with ever increasing rebates to help lower income afford them.
All housing stock is controlled by governments everywhere through zoning.
American cities could solve their housing shortages in short order but it'd piss off too many people who are "invested' in housing so we accept dead bodies in our streets and social instability instead.
Very few locals pay
rent here. Most people buy houses. Its kindof forced thanks to the system, but its designed in a way that unless you are a decimillionaire housing is expensive, but attainable. This is done by splitting the housing market into private and public housing. Is this perfect? No.
That's not all that different than US Social Security. SS has a much lower required contribution/tax rate, but the overall scheme seems similar (lower than market returns, etc) and naming (despite SS actually being called a tax, many residents think of it as a required personal retirement savings account).
SS is different mostly in that you’re not really loaning money to the government. The money coming in today mostly goes right back out as payments.
There’s also an upper limit on SS taxable income. I forget what it is, but basically the entirety of the top quintile isn’t paying SS on their entire income. I want to say it’s like 90k, but it’s been a while since I looked.
> SS is different mostly in that you’re not really loaning money to the government. The money coming in today mostly goes right back out as payments.
That's only a difference in accounting, not in reality.
They could 'fully find' SS tomorrow, by just creating a bunch of T-bills for it.
> There’s also an upper limit on SS taxable income. I forget what it is, but basically the entirety of the top quintile isn’t paying SS on their entire income. I want to say it’s like 90k, but it’s been a while since I looked.
There is an upper limit on CPF contributions as well, currently set at S$8,000/month for ordinary wages and S$102,000/year total (ordinary wages + sales/performance bonuses, etc...).
In comparison, the US social security income limits this year is US$184,500/year.
SS is forced to invest unspent funds in T-bonds... That's sort of a loan to Uncle Sam.
And yeah, income over $185k isn't taxed by SS (silly law - fixing that would mostly fix the fund depletion that's likely to happen right about the time I retire).
It’s not a win win policy. The citizens lose massive amount of their money to government on the bond yield delta. It preys on people not knowing the effect of long term compound interest.
Edit: in fact interest delta is how banks make their huge profits except the government here does it by force.
What's your source on the yield delta? In fact if you bought regular Singapore government t bills you will actually get a lower rate than the CPF rate. And neither do banks and saving plans give higher rates.
In this case the citizens are forced to save, but the interest they're given is less than what they would have earned by saving the same amount on their own.
Also, the average person in the United States does have meaningful investments toward retirement age.
This assumes citizens actually putp a lions share of their money into more risky investmemt vehicles. For reference, this may not be the case with a large swathes of our older population. Bank rates, t bills and bonds here are generally lower than cpf. If you are a high income earner the contribution is capped and combined with low taxes this is not a bad thing.
In times of economic distress the government lowers the employer contribution part of CPF. That effectively gives everyone a wage cut to help employment, but without people complaining too much about it. The government is disciplined enough to raise the rate again later.
> instead of just throwing it into a tax. It makes the government money
It is a tax, but with extra steps.
The reason it makes the government money is because they’re collecting the extra interest that citizens would have earned if they were free to invest it on their own.
The CPF funds actually remain in your account, and the interest goes back to you. 1. The interest is guaranteed unlike a regular investment, and 2. I'm interested to know what to invest in to get better interest than CPF, because that's a very legit benchmark here, so please tell me if you find something that has guaranteed returns + higher interest.
No, it's a total loss for the citizen because even if they can use that money for "(retirement, medical, housing)" the interest paid is much too low.
Forced savings programs aren't actually "savings" for the people on whom the programs are forced!! "Forced savings" is a euphemism for "we're taking your money and calling it savings based on the idea that we're going to invest it well, though you won't see much of any gains, and there might not be any gains to speak of".
You can retire whenever you want. The government decides when to start funding it.
As for why - the same reason why they get to decide what side of the road you drive on and what laws you follow. They rule the patch of land you were born on, and if you don't like it you can either participate in the system (assuming it's a democracy) or leave.
The real question is not why the government gets to set the retirement age. Of course it gets to set it IF it's involved in paying for people's retirements!
The real question is why governments insist on euphemistic names ("forced savings") that imply the opposite of the reality of the programs. And why people put up with such financial repression schemes. The answer to the first question is to keep people from being too upset too suddenly, too many all at once. The answer to the latter is that the people usually don't get a say in these things.
For Singapore this program probably makes a great deal of sense since Singapore is singularly vulnerable given its location in the world. To build what they did they probably needed these sorts of policies. I suspect most Singaporeans don't mind all that much, though I don't know. We would very much mind this sort of thing here in the U.S. though!
It definitely answers why. You are asking for an appeal to some moral justification. But there isn't one, and it doesn't matter. That's the whole point of "might makes right".
CPF makes a moral justification by arguing it is a "savings and pension plan" under the auspices of a moral justification of helping citizens set aside their own money. The very first thing you are greeted with on their website is that it's savings and an overview represents it as "setting aside" your own funds.
The government makes a moral justification of a savings plan but then when we dig down to it it's all ether and really just a scheme for bond rate arbitrage for the government.
The point isn't that might makes right is false, it's that the moral justification is a facade.
The government doesn’t set the retirement age. You can retire whenever you want. There are no laws against a 50 year old retiring and living off his own savings, nor against a 70 year old continuing to work.
There is a minimum age to collect old age benefits from the government. The justification for that should be obvious.
To make an overly dramatic analogy, if you were kidnapped and asked why the kidnapper was able to hold you against your will, the answer is because they've chained you up and they have the gun, and so on. That's literally the answer to why. The fact that what they're doing is morally wrong is completely irrelevant.
Like I said, they don't. You can retire today. They decide when you get access to a national retirement plan. Citizens of the country vote for that plan and how it is implemented.
Couldn’t you say the same thing about social security or pensions? There is a lot of economic forces that direct people to work until a certain age, the government controlling a benefit is only one of them. As to why, you’ll need to dissect representative democracies in Singapore’s case.
It doesn't (you can retire early), but it does decide part of what you will need to be saving and how.
And the reason it decides that, apart from "because it can", is because many societies have seen what happens when it's left to individuals to take care of this, and they fuck it up in massive numbers, and the outcome of that then fucks up society.
It is really easy to "Fuck it up" when greedy assholes jack up the price of necessities like food, shelter, and medical care. 66% of bankruptcies are due to medical costs. We should just socialize necessities like food, shelter, and medical care so there is no chance of "Fucking it up." That would cover the possibility of disability as well.
It sounds to me like we have built a system to exploit people as much as possible. Treating them like farm animals.
>We should just socialize necessities like food, shelter, and medical care so there is no chance of "Fucking it up."
How does socializing work if there are insufficient workers relative to non workers? I.e. the supply of food/shelter/medical care is insufficient to meet the demand?
Why would there be insufficient workers relative to non-workers? Socializing health care, shelter, and food does not lead to a worker shortage. In fact, having a healthier and taken care of population leads to prosperity in general. In addition, it leads to reduced costs. Countries with socialized medicine pay a fraction of what America does for better health outcomes.
Yes let’s have “5 Year Plans” with centralized control instead of the free market, what could possibly go wrong? If only we had a large country that tried that and failed miserably to see what could go wrong.
We don't have the free market. We've never had the free market. Every economy has always been under some degree of regulation and centralized control simply by virtue of existing within the context of a society and government that enforces laws and levies taxes.
The government has never controlled the means of production for the most part except for “natural monopolies” like utilities, cable etc where everyone should be served and it doesn’t make sense to try to have two companies building out infrastructure
Or, hear me out, we could socialize health care and tax the rich rapists that are currently running the country to end poverty in the richest country in the world.
The government decides when we can retire and they help us out. You can stop working today if you want, Government shouldn't pay you for it for no reason. Your duty as a citizen is to work and build your nation, eventually the government pays back that service with benefits.
This isn't something the government gives you. It is something they have confiscated and held on to.
> Your duty as a citizen is to work and build your nation
What about the duty of the trust fund babies and idle wealthy? What about the duty of the capital owners? Why is the retirement age going up instead of down as productivity increases?
Not for the majority of retirement savings in the US, where Social Security makes up only about 25%.
In the case of 401(k)s/DC plans and private pensions/DB plans, the government allowed savings without "confiscation," i.e. immediate taxation. They gave us the benefit of deferred taxation if you wait until retirement age.
They get Social Security and Medicare, which while insufficient for many these days is a lot more than they would have gotten 100 years ago.
No one is going to argue that the system is perfect or can't be improved. Good people get screwed over all the time and always will, the most we can try to do is minimize that population.
because lifespans are increasing much more, people are outliving what they used to and are using a lot more money in retirement than they used to. Old people used to sit in houses and watch grandkids, now they're flying to foreign countries for fun.
These days I wonder about that duty I have. It sure felt obligatory some time ago. I thought of myself as a patriot and that the rule of law was something we we should be proud of. A country whose own anthem spoke of "liberty and justice for all".
The current trajectory makes my question a lot of things, including this whole "government pays back that service with benefits" as it will be some time before I ever see a penny of SSI.
A lot of our taxes in this country seem like a giant waste or are grossly inefficient at best.
A lot of that here in the US is because we've lost the will to participate in the systems that establish these things. We leave that to other people, and those other people represent our interests poorly. The people in a democracy take a really long time to effect change. It can be a life's work for some people. But the premise is that if we can find common ground we can eventually see some of our ideas take shape. That does still work here, but we have to actually have real conversations with each other that respect each others' differences to get anywhere.
After a bit it just comes down to motivation. Who wants to win more: 1. Someone who has everyone's best interests at heart so is unwilling to really run against anyone and is trying to balance out support for multiple conflicting groups all while learning the landscape and job or 2. Someone who knows they can use the position to get tens of millions of dollars, and are supported by a few large groups similarly motivated? This is how you get people like Va Lecia Adams Kellum and Karen Bass.
> A lot of our taxes in this country seem like a giant waste or are grossly inefficient at best.
It's our duty to elect people who use tax dollars wisely and to vote out officials who neglect their responsibility to the people and use tax money to enrich themselves and anyone else willing to bribe them. Our government is filled with grifters because we've failed to hold them meaningfully accountable for robbing us and failing to provide the benefits we're funding.
Many of the grifters in government have been working hard to make it difficult to hold them accountable. They disenfranchise voters, they keep us afraid and our futures uncertain, they collude against efforts to reform the system they've established for their own benefit.
Government was never going to just let us have "liberty and justice for all" the job was always on "we the people" to insist on it. We can't just pay taxes and expect everything to work out. We have to use the democracy we have to force the government to work for us and not just for themselves. If we've reached a point where that's no longer possible then it's our duty to "refresh the tree of liberty" until we have a government that works for us.
Psychologically the deterioration of we the people's power happens at an even more basic level when children are taught to resolve their conflicts by seeking out an adult.
I wouldn't mind taxes if everyone paid their fair share and it went to improving the lives of everyone instead of the wealthy few. We live in the most productive times per capita that have ever existed. Why do we need to scrimp and save to buy food while the number of billionaires continues to climb?
There is no "we" and has never been. Anybody who talks to you about "we" or "us" or your "duty" is just seeking to exploit you, hoping that you're dumb enough to fall for it.
There is in fact a we. It's just not based on race, religion, ethnicity, language, gender, or sexuality. "We" are the ones who create and work for a living instead of living off the backs of others. "They" are immensely wealthy oligarchs that exploit us using their ownership of land, buildings, communication networks and machines we need to survive.
I live off your back yet am nowhere close to immensely wealthy. I know it's en-vogue to hate on shiny billionaires but reality is a lot less glamorous. It's just lazy gov workers not getting much done, then hiring more people to try to cover their work. By the millions.
This question cannot be asked in good faith on a user board. It requires an 800 pages book on politics, history, philosophy, economics to be properly answerered and it would barely scratch the surface.
You might as well ask similar questions about most basic laws and concepts behind how western societies work.
We should each ask ourselves such questions and review our view on them from time to time during our life because they're important, but mostly by doing our own research and self study. But asking point-blank strangers such a vague question is putting an unfair burden on them.
There's maybe a few hundred people worldwide who could casually drop a proper answer to your question while casually browsing hn.
I believe it'd be more fair to start answering your own question to show how far you are in your intellectual journey on that topic.
My own answer is this. We have created a system of exploitation where we extract value from people's labor and transfer it to an oligarchicy that is slowly increasing in power. Governments are captured by that ruling class and are unwilling to do anything that threatens them. In addition, they are slowly reducing the rights and social mobility of the middle and lower class in order to expand the power and capital of the oligarchy.
Any money that is possessed by the working classes is then taxed in the form of increased living expenses or directly by the government until they can barely afford the necessities that allow them to continue working. Once they are no longer able to do so, they are discarded and allowed to die of preventable illness, starvation, drug use or exposure.
Social security is an entitlement. They have taken money from your paycheck to fund it. In fact, they have taken more from your paycheck than they will pay back to you in order to pay for an aging population. The extra goes to bonds which the government then uses to reduce inflation when they decide to invade random countries or bail out a bank.
Now, why does the government get to decide when I retire with my own money?
> It covers a major individual cost and need (retirement, medical, housing) instead of just throwing it into a tax.
Forced saving makes it a tax. It's essentially no different than payroll taxes in the U.S. that fund Social Security. Buying government bonds is still marginally better accounting than a complete Ponzi scam like Social Security in the U.S., but even that ultimately amounts to the same thing - the government is paying itself, so it's a wash.
Singapore is one of the last countries one will be a 'serf' in.
The parent contributor has conveniently left out the fact that the 37% of CPF contributions is split 20-17 in terms of employee-employer contributions[1], and has a ceiling of S$8000[2], so if one earns more than that, every additional dollar goes entirely to them, which is also taxed at globally low income tax rates[3]. One can put all one's post-tax money into any stocks/bonds/funds, and there is also no capital gains tax[4].
>The parent contributor has conveniently left out the fact that the 37% of CPF contributions is split 20-17 in terms of employee-employer contributions[1]
This point is a shell game, because the employer's share is still effectively being taken from the employee. It's equivalent of "tariffs are paid by foreigners!" that's trotted out for supporting tariffs.
I almost feel like the employee/employer distinction is actually worse than tariff fakery because at least tariffs are somewhat confusing to the average person, so you almost see why they get fooled.
But I feel like no-one would be fooled if you changed an e to an r on payslips (employee contribution to employer) - it's just obviously the same.
Yes. Bluntly put, the government maximizes residence of high net worth individuals, and a 37% forced purchase of low interest bonds would be outrageous to them.
You mean the US, right? Especially with the part 2?
I know this may sound like a shock because you are privileged but 7% yoy return on capital is NOT the norm for the rest of the world. Just look at any other index not called the S&P or the Dow. Look up US exceptionalism.
The US policy for retirement savings shackles the younger generation with a ticking time bomb. Forcing your own citizens to save money for themselves is a lot better than forcing your own citizens to pay for others. Which one is more morally cruel?
HK has a similar forced savings, but that ROI is like 1 or 2% and the options to invest are paltry.
Some perspective is necessary. Yes it’s not great but compared to the rest of the world it’s stellar.
> I know this may sound like a shock because you are privileged but 7% yoy return on capital is NOT the norm for the rest of the world. Just look at any other index not called the S&P or the Dow. Look up US exceptionalism.
I have sympathy for your general position, but this particular one is a bit silly: I live outside the US (in Singapore, in fact), and I can invest in US equity just fine.
I can’t speak for Singaporeans and every government has their detractors but the Singaporeans I’ve known loved their system and hated the western systems they were exposed to. They would laugh if you tried to describe their life as serfdom when compared to a life in the U.S. or Europe.
I'll be blunt and say most Singaporeans have a very poor idea of how these policies work. Another major one - virtually all Singaporeans believe they own their houses, and it is a point of pride and financial security. Most houses are on 99 year leases, but the idea that is deeply lodged is that this is longer than you can live so this is inconsequential. While this is true if they only cared about living in it, houses have huge financial/investment value to Singaporeans. Despite the iron mathematical law that these houses must depreciate their lease value, most Singaporeans believe house prices will continue to rise based on historical trends. The math just doesn't work out.
99 year leases make complete sense. Much of the value of a 'house' in an urban area like Singapore is actually in the land, and the value is being created by the community on a day-to-day basis. It makes no sense for that value to be captured for all future time by a single owner, that just encourages pointless speculation and makes it harder to allocate real estate towards its highest and most valuable use.
> It makes no sense for that value to be captured for all future time by a single owner, that just encourages pointless speculation and makes it harder to allocate real estate towards its highest and most valuable use.
How do 99 year leases fix the problem? Do people actually get kicked out at 99 years, or does the government renew it for a nominal fee?
The overwhelming majority of homes in Singapore are HDB flats built by the government. These are torn down and new, taller buildings fitting more people built in their place. It's called the Selective En-Block Redevelopment Scheme, or SERS[1]. People sell their flats to the government and are given new flats in other neighbourhoods, while their old homes are torn down and new ones rebuilt. So, yes, in some way, they are 'kicked out'.
If the lease gets renewed at market value then there's no point in speculating about what that land might be worth in the farther future. It's a key difference from a system where all of the future value must be captured at once by a single owner.
> virtually all Singaporeans believe they own their houses, and it is a point of pride and financial security. Most houses are on 99 year leases
It's not as if the US fairs any better. Here you never own your home, you have to pay property taxes your whole life (basically rent) or it will be taken from you. Eminent domain means that they can take your property from you at any time even if you've kept paying them.
Singapore has a home ownership rate of ~90% vs 65% in the US and prices are so unaffordable that on average people buying their first starter homes in the US are in their 40s! Most Americans, if they're lucky will get maybe get 30 years of their life in a home they own while they are still young and healthy enough to enjoy it.
Last I heard Singapore only had about 1,000 homeless. Whatever they're doing with housing could probably be improved on, but they seem to be doing a lot better than we are.
Property taxes also apply in Singapore and I believe in practice eminent domain is rarely exercised. But the home ownership rate is the thing I feel the most I should correct. It is very heavily pushed that Singaporeans own their homes. But legally they are renters. By a proper definition, probably something like 90% of Singaporeans are renters, not home owners.
I think Singaporeans have a decent idea, and given their quality of lives, they have no problems with the trade-offs. If they do, they leave. And many go back, because the trade-offs in the West are even worse.
> Despite the iron mathematical law that these houses must depreciate their lease value
SERS means that houses slated to be torn down are resold back to the government at near-market rates excluding the effect of the 99-year leasehold.
In Singapore, the government owns everything, even ostensibly 'freehold' land. If they want to run an MRT line under your house, and they need to tear your house down to get to it, they will force you to sell your house and your land to them. Has happened before, will absolutely happen again. It's an island city-state smaller than London. There is literally no space anywhere else.
> If they want to run an MRT line under your house, and they need to tear your house down to get to it, they will force you to sell your house and your land to them.
Eminent domain exists in the U.S. and other developed countries too. The point of it is largely to prevent any single owner from "holding up" a non-trivial project like an MRT line.
I think whether houses should be sold on a 99 year lease vs property is a large and separate question. The vast misunderstanding of it still remains - the idea that a house is owned, not rented. Selective properties might be bought back. But the fundamental invariant of this whole situation is that all 99 year leases will worth 0 eventually. Any rise in prices now only increases the eventual depreciation. And add on that massive loans are taken out on depreciating assets, so it's not an investment, it's a liability. And the significant majority of Singaporeans bears this liability on their books.
That's not how it works. The flats aren't valued for their space in the sky; they are valued for the land they are attached to, and their proximity and connections to other communities and infrastructure. I've already said that flats slated for SERS are bought back by the government at market rates well in advance of their leases expiring.
> The vast misunderstanding of it still remains - the idea that a house is owned, not rented.
What you seem to greatly misunderstand is that land in Singapore is at an extreme premium, the likes of which is hitherto unseen anywhere else. With this context in hand, the idea of traditional 'home ownership' is fundamentally flawed in the first place, because unlike much larger countries, there isn't a large suburban or rural zone in which a new city can just be sprouted up. 750 square kilometres is all you have, and if you have to recycle existing land to maximise its use, so be it, and if it means 99-year leases, then that is the cost.
Given average human lifespans, the Western concept of a 'freehold' doesn't really make that much sense anyway, unless you want monarchies, oligarchies, or corporate dynasties monopolising prime land and settling into an even more predatory outright rental economy, which is already seen in most large cities elsewhere.
People don’t believe me when I tell them that there’s a large portion of even the American population that will happily accept the simplicity and safety of serfdom.
Unless we scale back our lives significantly, and are fine with a lot less stuff and vacations and devices and modernized living (houses and transit today are vastly more complex systems than a few decades ago), there simply is no way to let a large number of people live like rich people.
I grew up in East Germany, and while it was a total failure, they got at least one idea correct in the workers paradise: We need to work. (Never mind the implementation, I already said it was a total failure, okay? It's about problem recognition, not about the quality of the solution.)
And you know what? I'm actually like my grandfather, who without any need whatsoever continued to work well past retirement, privately, painting a house here, doing some paint shop there, designing and installing a sun dial somewhere. He only got off the scaffolding on a house's paint job a week before he died.
I too would hate to just laze around. I LOVE doing useful stuff. I worked and made money many times as a child already, and it was always fun!
What stopped the fun was the coming of The West (which I too went to the streets for and wanted, still, "side effects may apply"). While I studied CS I took a job in a chocolate factory, not because I needed the money, but because that's what I always did and was used to. Being in the production of stuff is actually FUN! Except then came some western management idiot to make it clear fun is over. I had just setup a machine to work as efficiently and as well as possible (because that's fun!), so now I had to wait a few minutes for it to finish. Just a few minutes, no time to start something else. So I briefly sat next to it and waited for it to finish. In comes the management idiot, immediately jumping on me, why am I lazing around??? That's not what they pay me for!
Just an anecdote, and of course it is much better in knowledge jobs, but that, and the fact that the money accumulates towards the top is what I think is a HUGE problem in today's capitalism. No wonder they have to make live as miserable as possible for the working majority, because there is no fun. The managers and owners think we don't want to work, and treat us accordingly. But it is THEM who are responsible for much of that.
It's essentially a forced loan to the government at subpar rates. The "tax" is the delta between what the government pays out for the bonds vs what a bond of equivalent risk in the free market would have paid.
The magnitude of the investment also probably makes it impractical for anyone but the very wealthy to retire before that starts paying out. Most other countries have lower rates on their retirement schemes, which makes it feasible for more people to live on their savings for a few years before the government retirement scheme kicks in. E.g. in the US it's pretty feasible for the upper middle/lower upper classes to retire a few years before Social Security kicks in, especially if they're willing to live frugally.