logoalt Hacker News

ecshaferyesterday at 4:05 PM8 repliesview on HN

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.


Replies

everforwardyesterday at 4:33 PM

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.

show 6 replies
erutoday at 12:26 AM

There's another clever bit:

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.

ww520yesterday at 4:26 PM

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.

show 1 reply
Aurornisyesterday at 4:30 PM

> 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.

show 1 reply
foxyvyesterday at 4:08 PM

Why does the government get to decide when we retire?

show 6 replies
paulddraperyesterday at 5:24 PM

It’s analogous to the US, where you put money into social security and then withdraw later.

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.

zozbot234yesterday at 4:36 PM

> 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.

show 1 reply
drivebyhootingyesterday at 4:08 PM

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?

show 5 replies