Social Security

[Coltpower]

is social Security a ponzi Scheme or not
in 1930's FDR put in place because of the Great Depression part of the "NEW DEAL" so when people would retire then would not be in poverty.
The problem it was not suppose to last, but once you give people something you can't take it back for political reasons.
Now the questions is it a Ponzi scheme or not, and please look at the link below, and please explain your answer which way you think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

[Ifreann]

is social Security a ponzi Scheme or not
in 1930's FDR put in place because of the Great Depression part of the "NEW DEAL" so when people would retire then would not be in poverty.
The problem it was not suppose to last, but once you give people something you can't take it back for political reasons.
Now the questions is it a Ponzi scheme or not, and please look at the link below, and please explain your answer which way you think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

And what are your thoughts on this matter?

[Big Brain City]

is social Security a ponzi Scheme or not
in 1930's FDR put in place because of the Great Depression part of the "NEW DEAL" so when people would retire then would not be in poverty.
The problem it was not suppose to last, but once you give people something you can't take it back for political reasons.
Now the questions is it a Ponzi scheme or not, and please look at the link below, and please explain your answer which way you think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

No, it is not a Ponzi scheme; it shares only a few superficial characteristics.
And I'm pretty sure that I can infer your opinion based on this post and your flag: you think it is, don't you?

[Proto Earth]

As always misinformed people are mistaking one thing for another.
To have a Ponzi scheme you need an investor to give you money and the person who you invested in takes all or some of your money to pay other investors dividends so on and so forth social security is not a Ponzi scheme

[Coltpower]

A ponzi scheme is simply deal with is redistribute new investor money to the old people investors, and it not one person for one old person, but like 14 workers for one old person. The reason they are claiming it running out is because there is not enough new worker to cover the older people like the baby boomers, and people are last longer than before so that why it running out, and when I retire there will not be nothing for us when I hit retiring age so yes I believe it is a Ponzi scheme, and the reason it lasted so long is we stole money from other areas to keep it running.

[Coltpower]

As always misinformed people are mistaking one thing for another.
To have a Ponzi scheme you need an investor to give you money and the person who you invested in takes all or some of your money to pay other investors dividends so on and so forth social security is not a Ponzi scheme

hey what about the worker he pay taxes into social security, and that money goes to the retire people which are the old investors so yes it is aponzi scheme, and it was never met to last, but it called political suicide so yes it is.

[Tekeristan]

Social security should be enough to cover the needs, and that is about it.

[Wallenburg]

I'm fairly certain you'll have a change of heart as you approach 65.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

A particularly vile example of government incompetence and short-sightedness. Do the seniors, and particularly the future seniors and young people, a favour by getting rid of it.

[Tekeristan]

I'm fairly certain you'll have a change of heart as you approach 65.

Possible, but as of now that is my opinion. It seems rational to me.

[Wallenburg]

A particularly vile example of government incompetence and short-sightedness. Do the seniors, and particularly the future seniors and young people, a favour by getting rid of it.

Please tell me how something that gives money to the elderly hurts seniors.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

I'm fairly certain you'll have a change of heart as you approach 65.

Sad but true. When you're young and working, it makes no sense to be taxed so much to get so little in return. But when you're old and vulnerable, taking part of this mass theft is not just desirable but often necessary. It explains why so many young people are beginning to favour a voluntary/private Social Security system.

[Kelinfort]

I'm fairly certain you'll have a change of heart as you approach 65.

Sad but true. When you're young and working, it makes no sense to be taxed so much to get so little in return. But when you're old and vulnerable, taking part of this mass theft is not just desirable but often necessary. It explains why so many young people are beginning to favour a voluntary/private Social Security system.

Why not limited public provisions paid out of general funds without a payroll tax?

[Coltpower]

Plus they are going to keep raising the age since it going be over 100, and it will be pennies by time I retire.

[Kelinfort]

Plus they are going to keep raising the age since it going be over 100, and it will be pennies by time I retire.

Well if you're a five year old

It hasn't been raised yet. That being said, it should be around 70.

[Wallenburg]

I have an idea: rather than having young workers pay for others' retirement, TAX THE FUCKING RICH. That way workers get a break and retirement remains possible.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

A particularly vile example of government incompetence and short-sightedness. Do the seniors, and particularly the future seniors and young people, a favour by getting rid of it.

Please tell me how something that gives money to the elderly hurts seniors.

First and foremost because it is economically destructive. Nearly a trillion dollars a year is taken from the American people to finance it. The Social Security payroll tax is regressive, discourages hiring, erodes wages (it's essentially a double tax on employees) and discourages foreign investment. Maybe this would be more tolerable if Social Security was a soundly managed program. It is not. It is a Ponzi scheme that has threatened destruction of the pensions system in the United States at many times in the past forty years because of how poorly it was created, and as a result it needs continual legislative band-aids to keep it running. But its unfunded liabilities number in the tens of trillions, and the Trust Fund will be exhausted in a number of years.

All this for meagre benefits that often have a lower value than the taxes contributed for them.

A well-managed phase-out of Social Security, emulating successful privatisations in Chile, Australia, the UK and elsewhere, would mean individual workers have a choice as to where their money is invested and whether they value a secure retirement over a lucrative one. Even an employer mandate requiring universal pension coverage would be a strong step in the right direction.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

I have an idea: rather than having young workers pay for others' retirement, TAX THE FUCKING RICH. That way workers get a break and retirement remains possible.

What the fuck does that mean? Do you mean hike rates on individual income taxes? Increase corporate rates? What?

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

Sad but true. When you're young and working, it makes no sense to be taxed so much to get so little in return. But when you're old and vulnerable, taking part of this mass theft is not just desirable but often necessary. It explains why so many young people are beginning to favour a voluntary/private Social Security system.

Why not limited public provisions paid out of general funds without a payroll tax?

That's a good idea, but that alone still leaves the other overarching problems with Social Security unresolved.

[Coltpower]

Plus they are going to keep raising the age since it going be over 100, and it will be pennies by time I retire.

Well if you're a five year old

It hasn't been raised yet. That being said, it should be around 70.

Please that all political Bull I mean I hope it around, but unless there is an new baby boom there will be nothing in the next forty-seven to forty-eight years there will not be anything left, and the scheme will clasp on it self.

[Kelinfort]

Why not limited public provisions paid out of general funds without a payroll tax?

That's a good idea, but that alone still leaves the other overarching problems with Social Security unresolved.

Which is the Trust Fund? Or the fact few Americans save for retirement?

[Kelinfort]

Well if you're a five year old

It hasn't been raised yet. That being said, it should be around 70.

Please that all political Bull I mean I hope it around, but unless there is an new baby boom there will be nothing in the next forty-seven to forty-eight years there will not be anything left, and the scheme will clasp on it self.

Unless they raise taxes...which is most likely for a popular program.

[MERIZoC]

That's the first time I've ever heard it called a Ponzi scheme…..

Opposition to it usually comes in the form of "Government don't touch me monies!" or "Poor/old people get what they deserve"

[Autonomous Titoists]

I'm fairly certain you'll have a change of heart as you approach 65.

I won't have Social Security when I'm 65 because of its definite failure in the near future.

[Lerodan Chinamerica]

That's a good idea, but that alone still leaves the other overarching problems with Social Security unresolved.

Which is the Trust Fund? Or the fact few Americans save for retirement?

I highlighted the other problems of the system above. Few Americans save for retirement for the same reason why few British people use private healthcare - when the government provides something, it reduces the incentive to pay for the same type of service from another provider.