| ▲ | drivebyhooting 5 hours ago |
| Except for the part where citizens get low returns and are forced to work their whole lives accruing minimal benefit. How is being a serf win win? |
|
| ▲ | delta_p_delta_x 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| 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]. [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... |
| |
| ▲ | gruez 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | >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. | | |
| ▲ | kaashif an hour ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
| |
| ▲ | dmoy 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | $8000 is considerably above median income, no? | | |
| ▲ | InkCanon 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | spyckie2 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | drivebyhooting 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | If ROI is lower than inflation then what’s the point of saving? So you can have an even worse standard of living after you retire? Forced investment in low ROI vehicles is just a tax by another name. | | |
| ▲ | spyckie2 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well, would you have a better standard of living with $0 or $1000 when you retire? Even if that $1000 used to be worth $10000, that $0 is still worth $0. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | butterbomb 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
|
| ▲ | 3rodents 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | InkCanon 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | autoexec 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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. | |
| ▲ | zozbot234 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | gruez 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | > 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? | | |
| ▲ | delta_p_delta_x 32 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | 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'. [1]: https://www.hdb.gov.sg/residential/living-in-an-hdb-flat/ser... | |
| ▲ | zozbot234 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | gruez 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Doesn't that just turn into a property tax of 1% per year, without a massive tax bill every 99 years? 99 years is long enough that there's going to be at least 2 owners, which means all sorts of strategizing required on how to plan for the renewal of the lease. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | delta_p_delta_x 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | zozbot234 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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. | |
| ▲ | InkCanon 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | 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. | | |
| ▲ | delta_p_delta_x 26 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > 99 year leases will worth 0 eventually. 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | nosianu 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| 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. |
| |
| ▲ | drivebyhooting 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Working as a painter for lack of imagination of what else to do is not fun. It reminds me of being “institutionalized” from Shawshank’s redemption. | | |
| ▲ | bubblewand 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Adult coloring books are a thing. I could definitely see a person enjoying a version of that, that also had a purpose beyond killing time. | |
| ▲ | nosianu 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | temp8830 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You get lots of vacations? And fancy transit systems? Where do you live and work? |
|
