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.

>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.

Yeah there's even a term for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_repression

The rates aren't all that subpar, if you adjust for risk. You can take your CPF out and invest yourself (within limits), and most people do worse.

> 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 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.

> 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.

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).

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.