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.
It also robs the individual's freedom to gamble with their retirement funds while expecting/demanding a bailout when shit hits the fan.
In the USA we have thoughtful policies that allow people over a certain amount of wealth invested in key industries to do that.
e.g. https://apnews.com/article/biden-business-united-states-gove...
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.
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).
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.
How's that different from CPF? See https://www.cpf.gov.sg/employer/infohub/news/cpf-related-ann...
In comparison, the US social security income limits this year is US$184,500/year.
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 46 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.
You can shop around quite a bit for non urgent care, and get good cash discount.
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...
Your insurance company got the last laugh by a long shot. A typical family on insurance would pay $600,000 (between their take-home and the reduced wages paid by employers to cover insurance) in just 25 years, and that's before considering the opportunity cost of lost investments/yield.
I have been working for 30 years and have never once paid more than $10K a year for insurance across 10 jobs 15 of those years were a family plan.
Hell one of those jobs was with Amazon - the company with the shittiest benefit package in all of BigTech and even then I only $12K with a family plan. Right now we pay around $10K - my wife myself and my adult but under 26 (step)son
You might claim that if your employer didn't offer that benefit they'd just pay nothing, but required health benefits function much as payroll taxes which economists have showed are largely reflected in the form of reduced incomes. That is, you are paying it ~all one way or another.
You’re not wrong - I think it’s around 2/3rds so for me it would be around $36K a year all in if I had to do COBRA.
There is no way that $600,000 is the cash price for cancer treatment (especially 20 years ago, but also today).
The average cost of cancer treatment is $150k [1], and lower with cash price + shopping.
And it's beside the point. 99% of Americans can't afford to build a $600k nest egg just to cover medical expenses. THAT'S WHAT INSURANCE IS FOR!
And heart surgery is ~$60k. [1]
That's <36 months of insurance premiums according to the earlier poster.
[1] https://cost.sidecarhealth.com/ts/heart-bypass-surgery-cost-...
And if you want data instead of anecdotes
https://www.business.com/articles/health-insurance-costs-thi...
I think we can all agree that the current system is just... ridiculous
I used to be fearful of health concerns, but now I'm a carnivore and just feel great.
All incompatible with 99% of the upper class, neither do they want to eat ramen to retire early.
You're also one medical disaster away from being "very very wrong"
That’s the thing medical expenses when young are unlikely enough insurance is a viable strategy. Long term it’s worthwhile to move to a country with a less expensive medical system. You can move basically anywhere in retirement and be better off.
LTC not discriminating against pre-existing conditions is also post ACA.
Further FIRE doesn’t mean crap if you get something serious and die at 23, that’s just the reality of human existence.
There are plenty of conditions where the difference between life and death is being able to get health care
Most people didn’t do FIRE style early retirement while dealing with pre existing medical conditions. There however was plenty of expats pre ACA who very much left the country for early retirement.
US healthcare is ruinously expensive but on average it’s not particularly good if you’re in the income bracket where 1/4 million over a few years is a serious issue.
Brit’s will also call themselves expats. https://britishexpats.com/forum/ ditto Canadians https://www.expatden.com/global/canadians-living-abroad/ Also, the US imposes taxes on Americans who leave until they renounce their citizenship on the upside they still get to vote. It’s an unusual relationship to your former country.
If you're saying that people who have permanently left the US call themselves ex-pats, that is news to me, and I can understand the confusion.
Oh and catastrophic insurance plans only have to cover pre-existing conditions since the ACA - which one party is actively trying to kill.
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’ve already researched the residency requirements for both there and Panama
I already don’t pay state tax living in Florida and I would pay federal tax either way.
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.
Even on a pretty good Kaiser plan, we're paying $200+ per day in the hospital, etc. On a high-deductible, more. They say they have a $1M annual limit, but that they've never enforced it. I hope we never have to find out.
If you have an extra couple million dollars above and beyond your regular retirement fund you could self-insure your medical costs. But then you could just buy the health insurance.
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.
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.
If the median income is $70k a year, after taxes they should be able to save $23500 a year and have an HSA compatible healthcare plan and max out their HSA?
To answer your question directly, $70k income is independent of the cost of living in high cost of living cities (like NYC or SF) vs. low cost of living areas. If you make $70k/year in NYC, no you don't have the spare income to max out 401k/HSA. If you make $70k/year working for Walmart in Bentonville, Arkansas, then yeah, I expect that you ought to be able to max them out.
I bet you also your idea of upper middle class is not statistically valid.
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.
This also happened to you while you were working and slightly between jobs. So it's not really a FIRE concern if the concern is the US messing up the health care system even more in that it would effect everyone whether working or not. Generally speaking, an answer to mitigating a lot of types of risk with a FIRE model is: you just go back to work for a while. This is easier the younger you are.
Edit: Also I thought COBRA would have been a more recent thing but it was Regan era. So did you not have employer-sponsored coverage with the startup?
Also, just so happen I did end up in the hospital three weeks later because something happened that affected my breathing for an entire year.
And how do you “go back to work” if the entire reason you need to go back to work is that you have a health condition?
If you haven’t checked, jobs aren’t that easy to come by quickly in 2026 in tech like they use to be. Sure I could find someone to give me a contract if not hire me full time - but we are still back to not having insurance .
The US messing up insurance on the open market is the concern and it being back like it was pre ACA. That only affects the unemployed under 65.
As far as being between jobs - usually you can get COBRA for a limited amount of time - not an option for FIRE.
Oh yeah, that brings up another point, I did pay for COBRA for two months back then. The contract I had paid more than enough to afford it. Then the acquiring company shut down their insurance plan and COBRA wasn’t even an option
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.
The problem is, at core, fear. Fear of taking responsibility for your life.
https://www.cdc.gov/chronic-disease/about/index.html
90% of adults will have a chronic condition by the time they are 65.
https://www.aarp.org/health/conditions-treatments/most-commo...
I, on the other hand, only eat beef, butter, bacon, and eggs and everything is getting better. BUT, I may be in a cult, but this cult has benefits.
Again, I'm a nut job that has a HbA1C of 4.7 because I only eat beef, butter, bacon, and eggs.
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.
For acute accidents, who knows!
With carnivore: I'm off almost all meds, my mobility and flexibility are amazing these days (I am sitting on the floor right now with crossed legs).
Doesn't matter how well you take care of yourself if a random cell decides to divide in just the wrong way.
edit: to add clarity, I'm going to leverage full placebo and happiness to my advantage: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12883117/
I'm refute any negative emotions as they are counter-productive. I reject fear of the unknown, and I instead believe happy thoughts.
Keto helps with some cancers that are powered by glucose.
It does nothing to help with any other forms of cancer, of which there are plenty.
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.
Like good meals, but I don't really understand the allure of owning a bunch of things.
The ego, when left to it's own devices, is a hell of a drug.
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.
Yeah, I have a pet theory that I give about a 0.01% chance of coming to fruition... Next couple decades, AI, etc is going to force humanity to confront it's sense of self and priorities and wake up. A man can dream lol.
Florida - especially when you live in the same county as DisneyWorld - is heavily subsidized by tourism
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).
Also besides that there is also the solution of barista fire that's working part time just to get insurance. https://www.reddit.com/r/baristafire/
While I can drag myself out of bed most of the time as long as I have my right hand that I can type with [1] and walk over to my office most of the time if I am not feeling well, that’s big an option for most people.
[1] about that whole pre-existing condition thing. I have cerebral palsy that mostly affects my left hand and slightly my left foot. Even though I hadn’t been to a hospital since 1995 at the time for foot surgery - my only CP complication, had been a part time fitness instructor and could easily run a sub 10 minute mile up to a 15K at the time in 2012 - I couldn’t get private insurance. Now at 51, I’m still a gym rat with no CP related complications.
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.
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.
https://dqydj.com/household-income-percentiles/
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.
The first blow was when the Supreme Court killed the mandates. The second blow just happened when they killed the subsidies last year.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/14/aca-obamacar...
Yeah there's even a term for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_repression
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.
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.
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.
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.
But eventually prices will stop going up.
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.
I agree with you about fixing the housing market, but I think you underestimate the instability caused by changing housing prices rapidly.
If housing prices drop by something like 25%, a lot of people are going to be upside down on their loans (outstanding principal exceeds the value of the asset). The banks now have mortgages that aren’t fully secured anymore, and borrowers are heavily incentivized to allow a foreclosure unless they’ve paid down the principal by a lot.
We’re talking the 08 recession all over again.
And yes it does drive inflation of house prices.
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.
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.
Edit: in fact interest delta is how banks make their huge profits except the government here does it by force.
Also, the average person in the United States does have meaningful investments toward retirement age.
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.
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.
"There is no moral justification for the government setting a retirement age, but they are able to. So it doesn't matter."
There is a minimum age to collect old age benefits from the government. The justification for that should be obvious.
The justification is to force people to work until they are too old to do so. Then steal whatever they have left with medical bills and price hikes on necessities.
Actually, the justification is to prevent old people from having to work. Retirement didn't really exist until the creation of pension systems in the late 19th century, and the modern social security system was a poverty alleviation measure introduced in the 1930s. Hell, social security was initially resented by older workers because of the cover it gave employers for firing them for being too old.
Social Security constitutionality was ruled on just months after the 'switch in time that saved 9' associated with a threatening to pack the courts and evade the checks and balances built into our "democracy." They ruled it was covered under 'general welfare' in a way that was totally historically inaccurate.
Furthermore, FDR and congress purposefully had it packaged in an omnibus style bill to evade democratic scrutiny over the individual portions, by purposefully torpedoing other aid to needy individuals if SS didn't pass, so that lawmakers wouldn't be able to vote on democratic view of SS but rather being damned in a catch-22 where they'd be accused of not helping out the needy in other ways.
Basically the whole thing was designed to not only evade democracy but also the constitution.
[] Recollections of the New Deal, by Thomas H. Eliot, pp. 102-115 (Northeastern University Press, Boston, 1991).
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.
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.
Edit: Although, when my time comes as it inevitably will, I think the wilderness would be a nice place to do it. Maybe in a tree.
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!
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 sounds to me like we have built a system to exploit people as much as possible. Treating them like farm animals.
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?
The total fertility rate and the trends of that rate of basically every country, especially the ones with socialized medicine.
> 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Your media platforms may be owned by the shiny billionaires, but the laws they adhere to are created and enforced by mobs of average 10-4 workers.
You might as well ask similar questions about most basic laws and concepts behind how western societies work.
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.
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.
Now, why does the government get to decide when I retire with my own money?
How is being a serf win win?
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].
[1]: https://www.cpf.gov.sg/employer/employer-obligations/how-muc...
[2]: https://www.cpf.gov.sg/employer/infohub/news/cpf-related-ann...
[3]: https://www.iras.gov.sg/taxes/individual-income-tax/basics-o...
[4]: https://www.iras.gov.sg/taxes/individual-income-tax/basics-o...
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.
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.
(I say, mostly, because they still don't allow rich people to take arbitrary drugs. Unless you count getting a doctor to give you a prescription.)
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.
Forced investment in low ROI vehicles is just a tax by another name.
Even if that $1000 used to be worth $10000, that $0 is still worth $0.
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.
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.
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?
[1]: https://www.hdb.gov.sg/residential/living-in-an-hdb-flat/ser...
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
Even in unified Germany you can have fun. I think actually a lot more. You can run your own independent cooperatives etc.
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 only question is whether the fund is running at a surplus or not.
The US has raided its fund to finance other government programs, and then will have to pay it back via tax revenues.
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.
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".
the UK effectively does the same thing with DB schemes forced to buy Gilts
Offering a DB scheme however is an employer's choice, a choice most choose not to make today.
Social Security is effectively the same thing. Payroll taxes are collected and placed in the social security trust fund, which invests them in federal bonds.
Currently there are more payouts than taxes so the trust fund is being used to make up the difference.
When the trust fund is depleted (barring any changes, this happens at some point in the next decade if I'm not mistaken) then there will be a reckoning. If no action is taken by Congress the result is that payouts will be cut by the necessary percentage to match the taxes.
Yes, it does. The Obama administration explicitly appropriated general government funds to try and make up a developing shortfall in the 'fund'. There is no money being accumulated because there are more payouts than taxes - but even if that wasn't the case, these are not actual "bonds" that have been bought on any market, they're just non-market government obligations.
Tangentially, I've had a similar gripe around how some US folks discuss Singapore's similar old-rival Hong Kong. They'll advocate "Hong Kong shows policy X works, we should do X here too", while ignoring the other half of the system required to make it work, policies the same advocates would never want to adopt.
In particular, celebrating HK's "tax freedom" while glossing over how the government does fund expenditures. It's the ultimate landlord, deliberately constraining supply (with high subsidies to the poor to prevent revolt), and draws from its huge [0] sovereign-wealth fund.
[0] Huge by any US standards, even if far smaller than Singapore or Norway. To put the per-capita amounts in context, if the US is 1x, then HK=80x, Singapore=356x, Norway=379x.
So they are functionally productive and net positive to any scheme about post work funding for the community.
I have lived there and can rattle off plenty of criticisms about the country but complaining about migrant workers who clamour to work in SG is not one of them.
The vast majority of Singapore migrant workforce are Malaysian citizens who live over the border in JB, you can rent a 2 bed apartment there for $300 a month and eat out in a restaurant for $2 while commuting each day to a developed country and earn those level of wages.
To pretend these people have a rough deal compared to back home is absurd and I'd challenge anyone to actually talk to them first before getting on your high horse. Ask them if they would prefer to work in their home country.
The point is not if they get a rough deal or not compared to their home income. The point is that the welfare state costs on the tax base won't be spent to their material benefit, so they are not a cost on the state after working lifetime. Forced saving schemes be they state pension, annuity or superannuation are savings which act as investment capital and i am sure sematek and other bodies leverage this, and then in income phase return to the holder but they are not equal to the lifetime cost of care for the elderly, or provision of housing.
Dubai has much more extreme exploitation of low wage migrant labour, not that none of the workforce in Singapore is remittance labour, filipina nannies and the like but I'm not actually talking about construction site labour or the Dubai passport hijack thing.
Must be a fully automated border or something? That kind of commute would be unthinkable between e.g. Canada and the USA for most folks
TBH, I’ve gotten a lot more shit over the years from Canadian authorities at the border. The Canadians are tough about foreigners with convictions entering the country, and if you share a name with someone with a DUI, sometimes you get flagged. All border police do random tit for tit enforcement or look for specific things for reasons.
It appears to be the world's second busiest checkpoint now though if you count the Macau to China checkpoint.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_checkpoint#Busiest_chec...
Singapore has the smoothest border controls I’ve ever experienced; it takes me less than half an hour between stepping off a plane at Changi to stepping into my apartment.
Transiting through the American shitshow that requires clearing immigration again on the other hand…
In fact, this had become a hot button issue in the elections. All this while, and even today the government claims that the people are the owner considering they can sell the units and book profits. On the other hand, they justify the 99-year limit, as a step to being fair towards future generations in a land scarce country.
There have been many policy and public discussions around this topic. But, as of date, there is no firm or permanent solution to this conundrum.
My comment came from two observations: 1. The majority of Singapore citizens live in HDB. 2. The vast majority of non-landed residential properties (private condos and HDBs) are on 99-year leases.
how does that work?
Why? What? You know, they have to win elections?
They recently tightened migrant worker visas quite a lot.
[0] https://www.singstat.gov.sg/publications/reference/singapore...
For those who know how to manage their money, this is absolutely a hit on potential returns. But for many who may not, this is net more than what they would have otherwise
The primary purpose of CPF is not a pension scheme. It is structured as a massive forced bond purchase scheme by citizens. Financially what happens is the 37% of citizen income buys a long term bond (till retirement age, on average decades) at rock bottom interest rates (it's pegged to the overnight rate or a minimum of 2.6%). The returns are specifically decoupled from the real long term returns. This has historical roots in the government needing vast capital financing. They make enormous amounts of the delta between the short term interest rate and long term capital gains. Singapore has no oil or natural resources, but it's sovereign wealth fund has AUM in the regions of countries like Norway which do for this reason. It is not a shock absorber like the article suggests. The withdrawal terms are strict - housing, a significant medical expense and retirement are the only real ways to get money out of it.
"Trying to keep people employed" is a goal, not a policy. In fact the Singapore government maintains a large worker supply through immigration. The foreign worker population, ~30%. The main goal of the government is to maximize the absolute number of people working.
The reason it raising the retirement age is effective in workforce participation is because most people have no choice. Retirement only pays out after the age. The working life of an average Singaporean has seen 37% gone to CPF, maybe another 10% to income taxes, another 5% to GST, road tax, property tax, etc. After all this there's the astronomical cost of living. This is also intentional, to raise the number of employees.