Is this false?
How about this?Both Social Security (since 1935) and it sister program, Medicare (since 1965) have been insolvent for years, as is typical of a Ponzi scheme, and despite gargantuan increases in the tax rates they inflict and the number of people they force to pay into them via automatic paycheck deductions. FICA and Medicare tax rates, combined (and also for employers and employers, together), increased steadily from just 2.25% of pay between 1935 and 1953 to 4.50% by 1960, 6.90% by 1970, 8.10% by 1980, and 15.3% by 1990 (where it now stands). Meanwhile the income on which these higher tax rates apply has been repeatedly increased.
Or this?In a 1936 publicity pamphlet describing the program to Americans, the Social Security Administration pledged that after 1949 the combined payroll tax rate of 6% would apply only to a worker’s annual income up to $3,000 and “that is the most you will ever pay.” Yet that 6% rate was breached under JFK (1962) and today’s rate (15.3%) is more than double the 1949 promised rate. Worse, today’s high rate applies to as much as $106,800 of annual income, which is more than triple the inflation-adjusted equivalent of what $3,000 was worth in 1949 (i.e., $28,642). Thus instead of paying $1,718/year (6% on income as high as $28,642), we’re now forced to pay $16,340/year (15.3% on income as high as $106,800) – an increase of nearly ten-fold.
Or how about this?One might expect these massive new inflows to be more than enough for Washington to establish a “trust” fund, invest it productively, and pay higher benefits. Not so. In the 1960s Congress and Treasury began raiding the Social Security fund, to finance general outlays, while leaving behind an ever-rising pile of non-tradable Treasury bonds (now worth $2.6 trillion). Most inflows were spent immediately on current beneficiaries, a method basic to any Ponzi scheme, and U.S. politicians gave it the cute-sounding name PAYGO (“pay-as-you-go”). In a private pension plan or annuity the beneficiary receives returns based on what he contributes, plus real investment returns, and assets are held in a legally-segregated account which he owns. In contrast, the Supreme Court ruled in Flemming v. Nestor (1960) that “entitlement to Social Security benefits is not a contractual right,” so politicians now perennially exploit voters by scaring them about potential changes.
Or again, how about this since you expect future payments to be made by future employees?The Ponzi status of the scheme is also corroborated by its widening net of victims. In 1935 it applied only to workers in commerce and industry, but in 1939 it was first applied to seamen and bank employees, then in 1946 to railroad workers, in 1950 to regularly-employed farm workers, the self-employed, and federal employees lacking pensions, in 1951 to railroad workers, in 1954 to home workers plus state and local government employees, in 1956 to the military, firemen, and policemen, in 1965 to interns, self-employed doctors and tip recipients, in 1967 to clergy, and in 1983 to all federal civilian employees hired after that year, plus Congress, the President, Vice-President, federal judges, and workers at non-profit organizations.
You see, liberals will always bury their head in the sand while kicking the can down the road to the next generation. The problem is eventually there will be no can to kick any further.Another obvious sign that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme is the fact that the working age population (18-65 years old) is dwindling as a multiple of retirees collecting benefits. In 1935 there were 9.4 working-age Americans per retiree, but the ratio has since declined to 5.7 in 1960, 5.2 in 1985, and 4.8 in 2010. The Social Security Administration itself predicts the ratio will fall to 2.8 by 2035. Put another way, in 1935 each worker had to support 1/9th of a retiree, but by 2035 he’ll have to support roughly three times that load, or 1/3rd of a retiree.