3 ms·

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

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-much-cpf-contributions-to-pay https://www.cpf.gov.sg/employer/employer-obligations/how-muc... [2]: https://www.cpf.gov.sg/employer/infohub/news/cpf-related-announcements/new-contribution-rates https://www.cpf.gov.sg/employer/infohub/news/cpf-related-ann... [3]: https://www.iras.gov.sg/taxes/individual-income-tax/basics-of-individual-income-tax/tax-residency-and-tax-rates/individual-income-tax-rates https://www.iras.gov.sg/taxes/individual-income-tax/basics-o... [4]: https://www.iras.gov.sg/taxes/individual-income-tax/basics-of-individual-income-tax/what-is-taxable-what-is-not/gains-from-sale-of-property-shares-and-financial-instruments https://www.iras.gov.sg/taxes/individual-income-tax/basics-o...

dmoy 8mo ago
$8000 is considerably above median income, no?
- InkCanon 8mo ago
  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.
  - eru 8mo ago
    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.)
gruez 8mo ago
>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 8mo ago
  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 8mo ago

$8000 is considerably above median income, no?

InkCanon 8mo ago
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.
- eru 8mo ago
  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.)

gruez 8mo ago

>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 8mo ago
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.