If you don’t believe that it is a Ponzi Scheme, go start a private system with the exact same rules and parameters. You could let in know later what you end up being charged with.
To be a Ponzi scheme, there has to be a criminal (individual or group) at the top skimming money for personal gain. Presumably, if I did it, it would be for personal monetary gain. The government has no such greed-based motivations, even if all of the people in government are subjected to greed-based motivations. In a Ponzi scheme, the money disappears and the majority of investors get nothing. Therefore, SS is just a forced savings program with no actual physical savings. It can continue indefinitely as long as adjustments are made for lifespan changes and things like that.
Too bad Bush didn't get his SS plan passed back in 2005. Letting people invest half of their social security taxes in the stock market. That would have been a winner for everyone.
Maybe. What if people invested half their SS funds in the stock market and then 2008/09 happened? Or what about the ten year period from 2000-2010 when the market has zero net gains?
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/^DJ...vbUF0Q3VycmVudE1vdXNlUG9zaXRpb24iOmZhbHNlfX0- Look at this chart, hard to pick a time when you would have been worse off.
There is no way to get out of paying SS, so I spent a lot of time with my financial advisor figuring out how to invest my money so that SS would just be gravy. SS was never intended to be a retirement plan, but way too many drank the grape juice cocktail and failed to plan for their future and realized way too late that they could not live off SS.
It is not a forced savings program. If it were that and every check I cut the government went into a savings account for myself and our employees you would be correct. But that is not what happens. This is a forced redistribution program. A ponzi scheme absolutely analogizes it. It is criminal to force our kids to pay more and then ask their kids to pay more so they can get back what was redistributed to their parents generation.
It's not a savings program. It's a pay as you go program. Similar to a Ponzi scheme in that you pay now and expect to get some back later. Different, because nobody is at the top, skimming profits off to keep for himself. SS has also been successful. Again, before SS, 50% of seniors lived at or below the poverty line. Today, that's 10%. A 40% reduction, much of it because seniors today all get supplemental income from Social Security. Last, again, you need to take inflation into account. If someone paid $100 in 1995, and took out $200 today, yes, he's getting back more than he paid in. But in terms of value, he's actually lost about $10, because when you take inflation into account, $100 in 1995 dollars has the same purchasing power of around $210 today. And someone who paid $100 in 1995 likely has someone putting in $200 today, that 30 years from now, will be drawing SS...
I think drawing an analogy to investing or Ponzi schemes is the wrong way to look at it. It’s an insurance program. Just like any insurance program you may or may not have a payout event, but you certainly pay premiums now.
Trust me. I know you are not concerned that your kids and their peers will pay more for less so you can get yours.
No. It is a redistribution program from younger generations to older generations. That is the best way to describe it. Which is a version of a Ponzi scheme. Which just redistributes money until it blows up. SS will be insolvent if we don’t make the younger generations start paying more.
Just like I paid for my parents. And they paid for their parents. It's how the system is designed. And if the goal is to keep elderly above the poverty line, it's quite effective, again lowering the percentage from 50% in 1940 to only 10% today.
Like I said. You don’t care that your kids get screwed. As long as you get yours. And you are fine. Because you are well off. So they will be fine. Shoot you can redistribute some of their peers money to them. But many of their peers don’t have that benefit. And you happily think it is okay to take from them. Selfish reality.
Hilarious. From a guy who votes for Trump repeatedly enacting deficit funded top-bracket tax cuts which will be paid for by.......everyone's kids. Couldn't make this up.
Yep. I'll take from my kids. Just as my parents took from me. And Dad still taking. It's not selfish. It's paying as you go. And when you factor inflation, the numbers don't look bad at all. And again, Social Security has worked. Went don't you address the facts that the percentage of seniors living at or below the poverty line has dropped 40% since SS started? Isn't that important? Or, do you only care about you and your kids?
I have always proposed that we turn SS into an actual safety net for those who can’t help themselves. But there are too many like you. Who must get theirs… I do appreciate that you are honest about not caring you are screwing your kids and their peers because you were screwed.
What's your means test to turn SS into a safety net (which it is already), and how do you determine fairness? And wouldn't we still be paying into the system if we're paying for those in need? And many getting back zero in this case? Who is getting screwed now?
