Hacker News Reader

Comment by ecshafer | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

>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

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 other way to avoid a pre-existing condition is to just avoid medical care entirely.

Ah yes, the 4chan retirement plan. Die of a preventable cause at age 42 while waiting for your captcha.

If you accept that cancer is a death sentence, it’s not absurd to “self fund” your insurance with a nest egg.

You can shop around quite a bit for non urgent care, and get good cash discount.

How much of a nest egg do you think would let you afford a major operation like heart surgery or cancer care?

Even a minor one.

Read the qualifier.

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-...

It cost $30k for a loved one just to go to the hospital when their heart "felt weird" but absolutely nothing turned out to be wrong and all they did was run a couple quick scans and tests. I do agree with the overall idea of what you're saying that usually the premiums are way more than what you could get care for if you just saved the money, but the numbers on the website seem very wrong. I realize it's a total anecdote but from loved one's bills it is $20-30k just to get in the door and that is if actually nothing is wrong and there is no heart attack yet they're quoting $30k for an actual heart attack care.

That's the pricing when you have insurance. It is cheaper if you don't.

This is one of the most insane things that I have realized... I have terrible insurance (in case), but I generally don't present it as it is much cheaper and faster to pay cash...

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.

I have never in my 30 year career paid more than $10K a year for health care across 10 jobs and that’s including working at Amazon with their shitty benefit package

In my 15 year career, I have never paid less than $10k per year for just me and my wife for health insurance. And I basically try to pick the most sensible and affordable option, not luxury plans.

In the last 15 years I’ve worked for: General Electric when it was still a F10 company and more recently Amazon along with a 60 person startup where the family plan was $150 a month. (2018-2020) and two mid size companies in between and now I work for a mid size 1000+ person consulting company

And if you want data instead of anecdotes

https://www.business.com/articles/health-insurance-costs-thi...

Makes sense, I have never worked for a company with more than 200 employees or so. NYC area.

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...

600k once in 40 years is cheap compared to the total cost of insurance, especially when you consider the compound interest you could have made on premiums not paid, plus with the freedom to get cancer care cheaper someplace privately outside the US.

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.

Are you really suggesting that a family should not have insurance at all and save the money?

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've likely paid at least $18k if not more like $25k for that insurance in the form of wage income moved to benefit income. The government's tax and regulatory environment post WWII just ensures that unless you choose to take it as 1099 income, your potential 1099 income gets reflected in reduced W2 wages that are paid out in benefits.

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.

We know exactly how much your employer pays for their share of your health benefits. That was also part of the ACA to disclose it to employees.

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.

My annual premium for insurance was roughly $2400/year. Since then, it's gone to about $6k per annum. Even compounded at whatever the S&P500 returns for a 40 year interval, I'm pretty sure I'm ahead of the game. If you think I've lost $600K by having work provided insurance, we're not dealing with the same level of reality.

While I won’t argue insurance wasn’t overall beneficial in your case…

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.

[1] https://treatcancer.com/blog/cost-of-cancer/

I stopped cataloging the invoices after it hit $1.6M. Granted that's what the providers would bill my insurance, and we all know those are funny numbers, and while I'm sure that a concentrated effort to negotiate cheaper cash prices might have been productive, there's still the fact that I would have had to have $600k or so readily available. HYSA yields were pretty low for most of this time period, and if I had kept that kind of money in a stock portfolio, taxes would have killed me.

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!

Also, I wonder if this is skewed by more affordable treatments for things like basal cell carcinoma or prostate cancer that doesn't require surgical intervention. In my case, I had full on chemo, rad treatment, surgery, and more chemo. Wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy, but I'm sure as hell glad I had good insurance. Dealing with the medical side was traumatic enough, I don't think I or anyone in my family had the bandwidth to deal with negotiating cash deals with multiple providers.

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 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.

"Live frugally" , "FIRE" , "work in tech"

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"

90%+ chance the person you are replying to has health insurance that will cover them in case of medical disaster.

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.

99% of people have poor money management skills? It's statements like this that makes FIRE a fringe scene.

you're saying 99% of people think FIRE = ramen? I doubt that many even have heard of it

And what happens when the Republican Party gut the ACA and you have a pre-existing condition. Do you know what life was like trying to get insurance with a pre-existing condition before 2012?

Then they can just skip insurance. Most people don't need it, especially if they already have a lot of money (which is what FIRE means)

Obviously said by someone who is young and never had or knew anyone that had an expensive medical procedure like a friend who is 45 who I have known since 2003 and is a cancer survivor and now has to have open heart surgery

I don't believe your friend is most people. I have quite a few who haven't been to a doctor in decades.

But do you want to take the chance that you will never have major medical expenses between the time you retire early and you are 65 and eligible for Medicare? How many of your friends are over 50?

Very few, I am just saying that you can sign up when you think the risk hits your threshold. I'm mid 30s and wish I hadn't had to pay the last 10yrs. Honestly, until you have ids it's unlikely you'll use it and even less likely that you can't sign up for it before a major operation.

Yes you should try to time a major medical issue or accident during the open enrollment window. You should also not have car insurance until you think you might have an accident

So, in your 30s? My parents both had cancer in their late 50s/early 60s (including surgery / chemo) - and paid like $15 for some pain meds in Canada.

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.

Yes, I would get insurance once I have kids and that would cover the 50s+ when people usually start needing it.

That plan works until it suddenly doesn't. When it doesn't it's catastrophic for your finances and your health.

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.

Medical expenses are less expensive when you don't have insurance. Insurance is just for catastrophic events, if you do some regular risk analysis you can come to a balance that works for you. If you know a major medical expense is imminent then get the insurance. Most procedures don't happen immediately anyway.

That’s not how insurance works even with the ACA. You have open enrollment is the only time you can get insurance on the open market. Good luck if you find you have a major medical issue right after open enrollment ends - which the Republican administration has shortened and you have to wait 9-10 months.

i think you can get a pretty decent prius from 5k to 10k and a fantastic nearly brand new tesla model 3 for 17K. That's what i did. it was 8 years old, practically brand new, FSD prepaid included! it drives me to work and i only paid 17K for it!

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.

How do you plan for a potential quarter million dollar medical bills over a couple of years?

The same way that an employed person would plan for this. Catastrophic insurance plans put a cap on how much your medical bills can be.

An employed person since the ACA hasn’t had to worry about lifetime caps…

Oh and catastrophic insurance plans only have to cover pre-existing conditions since the ACA - which one party is actively trying to kill.

Good insurance is one aspect including long term disability coverage if you haven’t retired.

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.

Again like I have been saying, good insurance is predicated on the open market and ACA being around and not being killed by Republicans. Even if they don’t outright kill it, they are trying to put in a “death spiral” where only sick people use it and insurance companies don’t want to participate.

LTC not discriminating against pre-existing conditions is also post ACA.

In a hypothetical universe with different laws people would make different decisions, like abandoning the US. But you’re asking about medical conditions which rarely apply and laws that don’t exist. That’s not a failing of FIRE for the vast majority of people.

Further FIRE doesn’t mean crap if you get something serious and die at 23, that’s just the reality of human existence.

People didn’t abandoned the US before the ACA was the law in 2011-2012. And if there were an influx of US citizens to foreign countries, I can guarantee you other countries wouldn’t be as welcoming.

There are plenty of conditions where the difference between life and death is being able to get health care

Some did. The US expat community has been quite large for decades.

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.

There is absolutely no significant number of Americans who left without ties to other countries. I find it rich that Americans who leave the US call themselves “ex-pats” instead of “immigrants”

There’s over 1/2 million former Americans living in Canada or the UK which doesn’t require learning a foreign language. You really can’t make those kinds of sweeping statements about populations that large. Many Americans without any prior connections fled to Canada to avoid the Vietnam war for example and then made a home there.

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.

There's a difference in intention between ex-pat and immigrant. Ex-pat's tend to think of themselves as being wherever they are temporarily, but intending to return to their home country. Immigrants desire is to make wherever they are their new home 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.

They very much do. People retiring to other countries specifically

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.

No one is doubting that it is possible to save enough to retire by the time you’re 50 - as long as the ACA and the open market is viable.

Just leave the US, problem solved.

I said in another reply, that’s actually a real Plan B. We are going to stay in Costa Rica for 5 weeks starting next week and my wife and I are both learning Spanish now. I’m at around an A2 CEFR level.

I’ve already researched the residency requirements for both there and Panama

There are definite costs to this in terms of continued US taxation as an expat, especially if there isn't a tax treaty in place.

Costa Rica doesn’t tax foreign income. But logically it only makes sense to establish residence there if I am not working. CAJA - their healthcare system would be about the same price as my employer provided healthcare.

I already don’t pay state tax living in Florida and I would pay federal tax either way.

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.

How do you prevent random accidents, cancer, etc?

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.

But also you see people asking why can’t someone making the median wage - $75K a year - max out there 401K at $23500 and their HSA at $8300, etc

There are three things you can do with your money - save it (e.g. investments), give it away (e.g. charity), or spend it (e.g. housing, vacations). Whether or not somebody's investment strategy (i.e. saving) is optimal for their income level has nothing to do with the frugality of their lifestyle (i.e. spending).

So you are saying when I first graduated from college in 1996 I should have been able to max out my 401K - then it was $10K I believe. I was making $22K.

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?

I have no idea how you got that from my comment. How much you make, how much you save, how much you spend, and how much you give away are all independent, and neither is it a zero-sum pie (for example, sometimes investments go down in value, and sometimes the line between giving away and spending is blurry).

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.

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.

https://dqydj.com/household-income-percentile-calculator/

I didn't get where I am by taking random bets, but I'll say you'd lose your money here.

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.

So what did you do? Clearly you didn't die. Did you just have no insurance for the week before the new job started, or what?

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?

No, my then fiance/now wife and I canceled our wedding we had planned, and went to the courthouse and got married six months earlier so I could get on her insurance.

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

You do know you can have a wedding even if you're already on-paper married? The ceremony really has nothing to do with the legal act.

So wouldn’t it go against everything that FIRE stood for to spend money on a wedding after you lost your job?

Nope, it's just mindful capital allocation. There are plenty of ways to spend money wisely on a wedding. It's just a big party, and maybe a traditional ceremony. It's whatever you want it to be.

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.

Thanks for living frugally. Since you now have some spare money, I decided it's time for a rent increase. And a tax increase.

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.

https://dqydj.com/household-income-percentile-calculator/

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.

This guy did it: https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/ on like $65K IIRC

The problem is, at core, fear. Fear of taking responsibility for your life.

So exactly how do you “take care” of your insurance if the ACA goes kaput? “Thoughts and Prayers” until you are 65?

I pay cash for everything right now since ACA plans are terrible... BUT, I am also one of those nut jobs that only eats meat and it is amazing. But, most people can't even begin to imagine giving up carbs as they are junkies.

Are you willing to bet that nothing catastrophic will happen to your health before you are 65?

Yes. I will not let fear rule my life.

That’s monumentally not a good idea

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...

That data alone invalidates any idea of insurance being sustainable, it's a sinking ship.

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.

No insurance is viable because the risk pool includes people of all ages.

No, insurance is not viable until we fix metabolic health in the masses.

Again, I'm a nut job that has a HbA1C of 4.7 because I only eat beef, butter, bacon, and eggs.

Why even use pools? Ask your actuary about risks.

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?

People play dumb status games.

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.

So you think healthy living will prevent you from needing medical care until you are 65?

For the chronic stuff, yes.

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).

That’s not how life works…

Dude, cancer is an RNG roll away for anyone.

Doesn't matter how well you take care of yourself if a random cell decides to divide in just the wrong way.

Cancer happens all the time and your immune system deals with it. Look into the recent evidence of how keto deals with cancer. I'm telling you, I live in a world without fear and it is awesome.

Are you willing going to “happy thoughts” your way into never having a serious illness?

Yes, 100%, all the way, full send.

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.

I'm well aware of keto and cancer. I spent 5 years in ketosis, I trained semi professionally as an athlete (4 hours a day at a professional MMA gym), I spent years helping people get into keto and lose tons of weight and improve their health.

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.

And what’s their life expectancy?

Hate to be that guy, but the Hazda live in Tanzania.

The Hazda live in Tanzania, not the Amazon. And they grow up learning to live the way they do. They'd be as lost in our world as we'd be in theirs.

I retired on my 40th birthday, and it is AWESOME.

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.

This is the way.

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.

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.

Beautiful man, love it. Enjoy :)

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.

I think it will come sooner than that especially if AI doubles in capability every 4-5 months.

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

https://mrmoneymustache.com/blog/ Read this story and more in the fire community, it's not impossible

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/2020/11/09/direct-primary-care/

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/

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.

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 what part time jobs offer health insurance?

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.

With health marketplace you can get insurance, or you can get a PPA service, or save money into a HSA, like there is multiple ways to do it.

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.

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.

Here are the numbers for context:

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.

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.

The expanded subsidies, which were a Covid-era enhancement some 10+ years after ACA was enacted.

If you could have FIRE'd before the COVID era subsidies you can do it now

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.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/dec/14/aca-obamacar...

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?

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.

The top social security taxable income hasn’t been as low as $90K since around 2005. It’s currently $184500. 93% of income earners earn less than that

https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/

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).

> 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.

How's that different from CPF? See https://www.cpf.gov.sg/employer/infohub/news/cpf-related-ann...

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.

> 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 vast bulk of this “freedom” is exercised by public and union pension funds, not individuals.

e.g. https://apnews.com/article/biden-business-united-states-gove...

> 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.

But eventually prices will stop going up.

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.

> 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.

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.

And yes it does drive inflation of house prices.

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.

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.

That does not count the missing opportunity cost, which is the actual tax from the savings

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.

Not true. Importantly, a majority of the cpf can be used for participating in stock market.

This is what all forced savings programs are. The name is a euphemism.

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.

The average person does not make meaningful interest or investment income, its not practical to on individual small salaries.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

Alas, actually not: you can actually invest your CPF by yourself, and most people lose money compared to leaving it with the Gahmen.

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".

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.

Why does the government get to decide when we retire?

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.

This boils down to a "Might makes right" claim. It doesn't answer the question why. Only how.

What question do you want answered exactly? Why we have governments and not anarchy?

Why does the government get to decide when we retire?

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.

I personally could retire today. Most people can't. There is no referendum I remember where we decided to raise the retirement age. It seems like our government just kind of decided to do so.

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 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".

In an attempt to steelman, you are saying:

"There is no moral justification for the government setting a retirement age, but they are able to. So it doesn't matter."

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.

But the CPF isn't represented as benefits from the government. It's represented and claimed to be your own savings that you have set aside. At gamed bond rates where the government skims off the top.

The choice between working and starving to death is not a choice. If your savings have been taken by the government, then you don't have a choice.

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.

And if I was emperor, I would abolish payroll taxes and phase out Social Security. Unfortunately, we live in a democracy.

Social security was sold to the populace for purposes of voting as "insurance." Lawmakers straight up admitted they purposefully wrote the law in a confusing way[] -- resulting in evasion of democratic scrutiny and the scrutiny of the constitution. Then they briefly switched to not calling it insurance just for the purpose of scrutiny of the courts.

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).

> The justification is to force people to work until they are too old to do so.

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.

I'm just saying it is the answer.

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.

I know why they are able, what I want people to think about is "Why." The kidnapper has a reason.

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.

When are moral justifications not facades?

When they benefit others more than you and your in-group.

so the country can be productive? so it can have resources to fulfil duties to citizens?

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!

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.

What about the people who do not make enough to save and all their money goes to inflated living expenses? When do they get to retire?

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.

We could socialize the necessities of survival like all the other civilized countries in the world.

Easy. We don't. Work until we die.

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 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?

Because we're failing to hold those billionaires accountable to the system that allows them to accumulate their wealth.

Bingo!

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.

Your reality sounds suspiciously similar to the lies told on the media platforms owned by the shiny billionaires.

Haha and yours sounds like the lies spread by communists/unions/etc attempting to wrest power from anyone who has it now. Your view leaves a lot of gaps. My view is easily verifiable by almost anyone working (barely) and getting paid by taxes. Or second and third parties getting that sweet, easy gov $$. It's also inclusive of your billionaires- many get money from the gov or gov policies too.

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.

Funny that you think billionaires follow laws.

You argue that they never follow any laws? You have a weird world view, sounds like a high schooler on reddit and too much THC

What are you going to accuse me of next? Eating too much avocado toast?

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.

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.

>Why would there be insufficient workers relative to non-workers?

The total fertility rate and the trends of that rate of basically every country, especially the ones with socialized medicine.

https://www.populationpyramid.net/norway/2025/

Fertility rates? The world population is growing.

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.

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.

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

For some narrow definitions of 'control', and ignoring regulatory capture

They don't need to control the means of production. Simply provide minimum necessary housing, nutrition, and medical care. No one should starve to death, die of preventable illness because they can't afford care, or end up homeless in the United States. It's degrading to the basic dignity of our country.

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.

Yes, you should be asking similar questions about most basic laws and concepts behind how western society works.

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.

The government doesn't decide when you retire. The government decides when it is willing to pay you to be retired.

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?

If you don't like it, join the Amish and file a Form 4029.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergo_decedo

Well one obvious reason is that you're not retiring with your own money; your contributions fund current retirees.

> 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.

The social security trust fund does buy government bonds.

Social security is not a savings account and is currently underfunded.

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?

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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?

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.

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.

Yes, 30 year leases or so would be probably be better. Our Gahmen in Singapore already switched to these shorter leases for commercial property.

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...

> 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.

Eminent domain is probably not as rare as you'd think (https://ij.org/case/?pillar=eminent-domain)

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.

You get lots of vacations? And fancy transit systems? Where do you live and work?

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.

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.

Coincidentally, I was born in East Germany and now live in Singapore.

Even in unified Germany you can have fun. I think actually a lot more. You can run your own independent cooperatives etc.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

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...

$8000 is considerably above median income, no?

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.

Also Singapore is reasonably good about applying paternalism mostly to the poor.

(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.)

>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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com