• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Social Security a Ponzi Scheme?

Is Social Security a Ponzi Scheme?

  • Yes - absolutely

    Votes: 8 14.5%
  • Yes - it's more-or-less the same as

    Votes: 15 27.3%
  • No - but it's pretty close

    Votes: 4 7.3%
  • No - not even close

    Votes: 21 38.2%
  • Social Security is safe and secure, please stop scaring people.

    Votes: 12 21.8%
  • This is a crummy question with no relevance.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    55
You got through 90% of your post sounding reasonable and then you spilled into this political 'tea bagger' crap at the end.
My Tea Bagger crap is an actual experience we had so I posted, “The Tea Bagger we met with the $90,000 medical bill for his heart attack would not have burdened his family, you and us, if the law allowed the hospital where his wife works to refuse to accept him.” Let me repeat a post of mine, “A Tea Party family was at the demonstration, father, mother and one 10 year old son; two more at home. My wife and I chatted with them. The father is a vet that started serving just after the Viet War ended. He was disposing of Agent Orange; which in our opinion may have been the source of his health problems. He had a heart attack about 6 months earlier. Went to the hospital where his wife works as a low level employee. What she said she did only pays low wages. They can’t afford the extra for family health insurance, she was the only one insured since that can’t be refused for more pay. His bill was about $90,000. Her wages were garnished by the hospital; it’s only a small garnishment so it will take a very long time to pay it off. Again, they were there with a Don’t Tread On Me flag and more.” I don’t find this to be crap, I find it asking, demonstrating, for one thing; but, needing, expecting and getting another. And it seems to me to match many posters in this thread.
 
Yes? No? Why?

the big difference between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme is... your own greed pushes you to choose to be in a Ponzi scheme. we are forced into social security.
 
My Tea Bagger crap is an actual experience we had so I posted, “The Tea Bagger we met with the $90,000 medical bill for his heart attack would not have burdened his family, you and us, if the law allowed the hospital where his wife works to refuse to accept him.” Let me repeat a post of mine, “A Tea Party family was at the demonstration, father, mother and one 10 year old son; two more at home. My wife and I chatted with them. The father is a vet that started serving just after the Viet War ended. He was disposing of Agent Orange; which in our opinion may have been the source of his health problems. He had a heart attack about 6 months earlier. Went to the hospital where his wife works as a low level employee. What she said she did only pays low wages. They can’t afford the extra for family health insurance, she was the only one insured since that can’t be refused for more pay. His bill was about $90,000. Her wages were garnished by the hospital; it’s only a small garnishment so it will take a very long time to pay it off. Again, they were there with a Don’t Tread On Me flag and more.” I don’t find this to be crap, I find it asking, demonstrating, for one thing; but, needing, expecting and getting another. And it seems to me to match many posters in this thread.
Agree, even more than 100%.
I would have written the same...
And, with the tea baggers, I am most unpopular...
Things can be greatly improved, the progressive can do this, the conservatives only serve to retard, if not stop..
Also strange (to me) that ,apparently, no tea baggers are on the Democratic side ....
 
My Tea Bagger crap is an actual experience we had so I posted, “The Tea Bagger we met with the $90,000 medical bill for his heart attack would not have burdened his family, you and us, if the law allowed the hospital where his wife works to refuse to accept him.” Let me repeat a post of mine, “A Tea Party family was at the demonstration, father, mother and one 10 year old son; two more at home. My wife and I chatted with them. The father is a vet that started serving just after the Viet War ended. He was disposing of Agent Orange; which in our opinion may have been the source of his health problems. He had a heart attack about 6 months earlier. Went to the hospital where his wife works as a low level employee. What she said she did only pays low wages. They can’t afford the extra for family health insurance, she was the only one insured since that can’t be refused for more pay. His bill was about $90,000. Her wages were garnished by the hospital; it’s only a small garnishment so it will take a very long time to pay it off. Again, they were there with a Don’t Tread On Me flag and more.” I don’t find this to be crap, I find it asking, demonstrating, for one thing; but, needing, expecting and getting another. And it seems to me to match many posters in this thread.

I will admit I don't understand this post. You are complaining that these people were protesting against a system that would have benefited them personally?
 
the big difference between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme is... your own greed pushes you to choose to be in a Ponzi scheme. we are forced into social security.
Being "forced", similar to a two year old being forced to save for his old age..
Social Security would have never been necessary if American so-called adults did not act like two-year olds, in dealing with money/economics...Note that we do have societies within our society who apparently need little or nothing from their government...But, not all of us can be this way...
 
Being "forced", similar to a two year old being forced to save for his old age..

except that social security does not represent "saving for ones' old age".

now, if we were to put in place privately owned accounts so that our lower income workers could retire financially independent, then you would be correct. But in general our political left reacts to that notion like this guy:

simpsonized_01.jpg



as it is, Social Security payments in no way represent "saving for ones future" for two reasons:

1. the money isn't being saved
2. the program as it currently stands has less future than I do
 
I have read and learned...
Still I feel that our progression on many fronts is far too slow...
How many years must we lag behind our nation to the north ???

at least as long as they continue to have a freer market than us.

what!?! a freer market than the United States?!? say it ain't so!!!

ec-freedom-390x285.png


if you think we lag Canada in some areas, I agree; it is long past time that we lowered our corporate tax rate to at least 16.5% (and taxed territorially, as well).
 
As per the OP:

people who have described Social Security as a Ponzi Scheme include

Nobel Prize Winning Liberal Economist Giant Paul Samuelson who called it "the greatest Ponzi scheme ever devised". the argument (put forth by more than a couple of left-wing Social Security Supporters) was that the constantly growing economy, and continued high birthrate made Social Security a "sustainable" ponzi scheme from which we would always be able to wring more money.

woops, looks like the baby boomers didn't have enough kids.
 
Being "forced", similar to a two year old being forced to save for his old age..
Social Security would have never been necessary if American so-called adults did not act like two-year olds, in dealing with money/economics..

it is worth noting also that you have this precisely backwards. When Social Security was first inaugurated, 65 was higher than the life expectancy. People generally did save for themselves - we were a nation of savers - and Social Security was sold as a way to help out those whose savings had run out before their life did. It is only after we put into place Social Security and Medicare, and began to tell ourselves that the Big Ole Government Would Take Care Of Us that we started to act (in your words) "like two year olds" by ceasing to save, and moving from a saver nation to a debtor one. The baby boomers are now facing "retirement" with the entitlements about to collapse under their own weight, and having not saved for themselves, despite having worked and lived their entire lives in the greatest abundance of wealth the human species has ever known.... because we told them the government would take care of them, so they didn't need to take care of themselves. want to know what destroys a savings rate? a welfare state.
 
it is worth noting also that you have this precisely backwards. When Social Security was first inaugurated, 65 was higher than the life expectancy. People generally did save for themselves - we were a nation of savers - and Social Security was sold as a way to help out those whose savings had run out before their life did. It is only after we put into place Social Security and Medicare, and began to tell ourselves that the Big Ole Government Would Take Care Of Us that we started to act (in your words) "like two year olds" by ceasing to save, and moving from a saver nation to a debtor one. The baby boomers are now facing "retirement" with the entitlements about to collapse under their own weight, and having not saved for themselves, despite having worked and lived their entire lives in the greatest abundance of wealth the human species has ever known.... because we told them the government would take care of them, so they didn't need to take care of themselves. want to know what destroys a savings rate? a welfare state.
That may be true for some but I don't think it's true for most. Between 401Ks, Roth IRAs, SEP IRAs, and other retirement plans, people are taking responsibility for their own futures. Most people I know don't expect the government to take care of them and I can't imagine they could live off of SS if they had to, though I do know a couple of people who milk the system for everything they can squeeze out of it.
 
If SS was worth a damn, baby boomers wouldn't be a huge drain. Furthermore, ending SS for younger people wouldn't be the political kiss of death that it is. We are paying our parents, and that's why no one wants to end it, cause it would be like turning the spigot off. Remember the budget deal, and Obama said he couldn't guarantee SS checks would go out?

Another issue. It isn't, however, a Ponzi scheme. ;)
 
That may be true for some but I don't think it's true for most. Between 401Ks, Roth IRAs, SEP IRAs, and other retirement plans, people are taking responsibility for their own futures. Most people I know don't expect the government to take care of them and I can't imagine they could live off of SS if they had to, though I do know a couple of people who milk the system for everything they can squeeze out of it.

well good on you for knowing a particularly fiscally wise set of folks. sadly, that is not the norm.

Fully 2/3rds of Baby Boomers haven't saved enough for retirement.
 
That may be the case for many baby boomers, but that is only half of the workforce. Roughly two-thirds of the 150 million people working have 401Ks or IRAs these days.

and they do not use them - or they put in the minimum. The Baby Boomers are the ones who are about to retire; they are the ones who are about to be completely unprepared when they crash the entitlement system, and they are going to be the ones that insist that younger workers pick up the massive check they have bounced to make up for the fact that they acted irresponsibly.
 
.... ok for all you petty nit pickers: we will concede that its not EXACTLY 100% a ponzi scheme.
1) its not fraudulent
2) its not illegal.
3) its not tricking investors (because there are no "investors". Its a tax, not an investment)

But its SIMILAR in SOME respects to a ponzi scheme.
1) its not sustainable - contrary to its original intention the excess SS funds were supposed to be used to buy bonds (or something else) to actually MAKE money to be paid out later. But the government doesn't actually make money because it loans the money to itself. So when it it comes time to pay out the US will just increase US debt and/or print more money... AND that is what has got the government worried because it may break the system when it has to start paying more than it takes in.
2) its a pay as you go system - it pays out current SS with funds received now. Similar--but not exactly--to how a Ponzi scheme pays older investors with the funds from new investors.
 
and they do not use them - or they put in the minimum. The Baby Boomers are the ones who are about to retire; they are the ones who are about to be completely unprepared when they crash the entitlement system, and they are going to be the ones that insist that younger workers pick up the massive check they have bounced to make up for the fact that they acted irresponsibly.

Everyone past the baby boomers is ****ed. I am NOT an economist but here is what i think. The governments going to do one or more of the following:
1) go into massive debt. maybe default
2) print money like crazy and cause inflation which will make the dollar even worth less so your SS checks won't buy much
3) raise taxes like crazy (and not just income taxes)
4) cut benefits
5) partial or total privatization of SS (why didn't we get this passed with GWB?)
 
and they do not use them - or they put in the minimum. The Baby Boomers are the ones who are about to retire; they are the ones who are about to be completely unprepared when they crash the entitlement system, and they are going to be the ones that insist that younger workers pick up the massive check they have bounced to make up for the fact that they acted irresponsibly.

Acted irresponsibly ? lol....so you think all the babyboomers had high paying jobs where they all could afford to do it all themselves right ? and they just said nah screw it, ill have the govt take care of me..lol....and you conveniently neglect to mention baby boomers had no choices and were forced to PAY social security for 40 yrs or more...you make alot of assumptions that are just WRONG, you assume that babyboomers should have ALL MADE ENOUGH Money to pay taxs, pay social security, feed their families and live and pay maximum into 401ks and save for their own medical retired...lol.....and just chose not too and are all just irresponsible parasites.... you need to read some other books cpwill.
 
In order for SS not to be like Ponzi scheme in my view it would have to function just like a savings account - without the government profitting and without giving stipulations which limit how you can use *your* money and *when* you can access it.

Here is the problem. You are thinking like many people do about SS as an investment. It is not. It is an insurance program. The money you pay is a premium. You will be paid if you reach retirement age. If you do not you get nothing. If you die after 1 payment, that's it. If you live to be 100 you will get more. It is essentially an aleatory contract. We can calculate with pretty good certainty the amount of people that will retire, die, etc, each year and be eligible for the program based on its current age restrictions and how much it will cost based on the current payment rules. Just like we can calculate how many houses will be destroyed for property and casualty and how much to pay based on the amount insured. Using this information we can decide how much to tax ourselves. Sadly, we have chosen not to tax enough for the program. Actually we have, but the rest of the government has not saved money. The idea of a government sponsored "saving account" always makes me laugh. Does anybody think the government is going to actually save money, spend less than it takes in? I want to know. How the hell does anyone actually think a government private "saving" account will actually work?
 
Last edited:
Here is the problem. You are thinking like many people do about SS as an investment. It is not. It is an insurance program. The money you pay is a premium. You will be paid if you reach retirement age. If you do not you get nothing. If you die after 1 payment, that's it. If you live to be 100 you will get more. It is essentially an aleatory contract. We can calculate with pretty good certainty the amount of people that will retire, die, etc, each year and be eligible for the program based on its current age restrictions and how much it will cost based on the current payment rules. Just like we can calculate how many houses will be destroyed for property and casualty and how much to pay based on the amount insured. Using this information we can decide how much to tax ourselves. Sadly, we have chosen not to tax enough for the program. Actually we have, but the rest of the government has not saved money. The idea of a government sponsored "saving account" always makes me laugh. Does anybody think the government is going to actually save money, spend less than it takes in? I want to know. How the hell does anyone actually think a government private "saving" account will actually work?

Thats one of the better descriptions of SS that ive read Dr...yes it is more an insurance policy and it would be viable and continued working well if it werent for the extraneous drains placed on the program...Dems and GOP alike robbing the fund and the addition of all kinds of deadbeats being eligible to collect it way before retirement age.
If SS remained as you aptly described it as an insurance program for retirement age individuals only it would be fine financially.
I still have never recieve an answer to the question...if you abolish social secuirty and medicare like Ron Paul supporters and some teapartiers want....in the end who pays for the very poor that couldnt save for their retirement and senior healthcare...or the people that just didnt....that question begs an answer because there WILL BE MILLIONS of these people...
 
.... ok for all you petty nit pickers: we will concede that its not EXACTLY 100% a ponzi scheme.
1) its not fraudulent
2) its not illegal.
3) its not tricking investors (because there are no "investors". Its a tax, not an investment)

But its SIMILAR in SOME respects to a ponzi scheme.
1) its not sustainable - contrary to its original intention the excess SS funds were supposed to be used to buy bonds (or something else) to actually MAKE money to be paid out later. But the government doesn't actually make money because it loans the money to itself. So when it it comes time to pay out the US will just increase US debt and/or print more money... AND that is what has got the government worried because it may break the system when it has to start paying more than it takes in.
2) its a pay as you go system - it pays out current SS with funds received now. Similar--but not exactly--to how a Ponzi scheme pays older investors with the funds from new investors.

Well stated. Even the Social Security Administration admits there are some "superficial" similarities between Social Security and a Ponzi Scheme. Although, they say the reason it's different is because "There is no unsustainable progression driving the mechanism of a pay-as-you-go pension system and so it is not a pyramid or Ponzi scheme." The problem is that the population change is beginning to make it unsustainable.

I think it's interesting the Social Security Admin. made this comparison in 2009 on their own website.
 
.... ok for all you petty nit pickers: we will concede that its not EXACTLY 100% a ponzi scheme.
1) its not fraudulent
2) its not illegal.
3) its not tricking investors (because there are no "investors". Its a tax, not an investment)

But its SIMILAR in SOME respects to a ponzi scheme.
1) its not sustainable - contrary to its original intention the excess SS funds were supposed to be used to buy bonds (or something else) to actually MAKE money to be paid out later. But the government doesn't actually make money because it loans the money to itself. So when it it comes time to pay out the US will just increase US debt and/or print more money... AND that is what has got the government worried because it may break the system when it has to start paying more than it takes in.
2) its a pay as you go system - it pays out current SS with funds received now. Similar--but not exactly--to how a Ponzi scheme pays older investors with the funds from new investors.
But Social Security is sustainable by the mere fact it is a pay as you go system. By definition, it can never run out of money because there is a constant supply of payroll taxes. When the trust fund of approximately $2.5 trillion runs out it will still be able pay benefits of about 80%.
 
But Social Security is sustainable by the mere fact it is a pay as you go system. By definition, it can never run out of money because there is a constant supply of payroll taxes. When the trust fund of approximately $2.5 trillion runs out it will still be able pay benefits of about 80%.
Can you cite your source for those numbers you posted?
 
Back
Top Bottom