GreenvilleGrows
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 566
- Reaction score
- 221
- Location
- My version of reality
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
With my position being, until it is, it's currently being run like a Ponzi scheme.
Except that it isn't. It is nothing different than any other program that pays from government coffers. By your argument, government employee pay is a ponzi scheme, which is obviously ridiculous.
Except that it isn't. It is nothing different than any other program that pays from government coffers.
By your argument, government employee pay is a ponzi scheme, which is obviously ridiculous.
The ponzi scheme part of it is that they tell you you're going to get your money back, when in all likelihood, you're never going to see it again. A program where they just gave a small stipend to seniors who couldn't afford their retirement would be better, since it would be honest.
The ponzi scheme part of it is that they tell you you're going to get your money back, when in all likelihood, you're never going to see it again. A program where they just gave a small stipend to seniors who couldn't afford their retirement would be better, since it would be honest.
The government has no coffers.
Well now that you bring it up......but no, it wouldn't be the same. In a government job you are told that if you work 40 hours, this is what you will get. It's what you get.
With S.S. the arguement is that if you pay in, you will get this at this age. Many are not going to get that.
They knew - from the very beginning - that it was unsustainable . . . but they chose to not care and to ignore that and save that worry for later generations.
Well - it's later.
We're shafted.
Government profited greatly from it and not so many seem to rely on it so heavily we have to be indebted to it to limp it along.
It is entirely possible they will get that. SS programs have run far longer than the US SS program has. What might happen is that the retirement age gets changed, or FICA gets increased, or the FICA cap gets raised. Further, it is entirely possible that people working could get fired, laid off, reduced wages, even working for the government, so again, either SS is not a ponzi scheme, or government employee pay is.
But that's not what a ponzi scheme is. A ponzi scheme isn't paying back IOU's.I see it as a ponzi scheme because it relies on present-incoming monies from working individuals to pay back the 'I - O - U' and payouts to recipients who are drawing from social security right now.
Still not a ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme is designed to fail with those above a certain plateau on the pyramid being the only ones to make a profit, that profit being off the investments of those underneath them. SS was not designed to fail and if it does fail because it can't support the large influx of baby boomers, which was not envisioned at the time it was incepted, in large part, that could be explained by all of the years the SS surplus' were spent for non-SS items. It would not be failing for the reason a ponzi scheme is destined to fail -- exhausting the pool of investors.I explained the differences. Those who buy in a Ponzi scheme may very well get something also. Just not what they were told when they started paying in.
A stack of endless IOU's is all that a ponzi scheme is.But that's not what a ponzi scheme is. A ponzi scheme isn't paying back IOU's.
Still not a ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme is designed to fail with those above a certain plateau on the pyramid being the only ones to make a profit, that profit being off the investments of those underneath them. SS was not designed to fail and if it does fail because it can't support the large influx of baby boomers, which was not envisioned at the time it was incepted, in large part, that could be explained by all of the years the SS surplus' were spent for non-SS items. It would not be failing for the reason a ponzi scheme is destined to fail -- exhausting the pool of investors.
It's not a pretend pool of money. It's an actual pool of money. Unlike SS, there is no surplus to spend on other budgetary items.A stack of endless IOU's is all that a ponzi scheme is.
In a Ponzi scheme people pay into a pretend pool of money (usually 'investment' into stocks or something) and in order to keep the scheme going the monies coming in need to be sufficient enough to turn around and pay out to those who are expecting some type of dividend or return. This divided - to the ponzi-operator - is an "IOU"
Which make SS not a ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme fails when it exhausts its supply of investors. SS's investor pool is not exhausting if it can't support the baby boobers. And unlike a ponzi scheme which fails when the investor supply runs dry, the federal government has other options to support the influx of baby boomers.A stack of endless IOU's is all that a ponzi scheme is.
The moment the monies in/out at current tap out - the scheme falls apart.
With SS the moment people aren't paying in at the rate that people are taking out - it'll cave in on itself and go belly up.
It is a ponzi scheme with a few extra tiers and the backing and full support of the US government to maintain it.
The only reason why SS's pool doesn't fail is because the government has leverage to just TAKE to fund it - a ponzi scheme in the traditional sense must have people DRAWN to it.
That doesn't change the fact that it - at present - functions like a ponzi scheme.
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.
Which also differentiates SS from a ponzi scheme. A ponzi shceme cannot be saved from failure.What was my arguement? Not that it was, but that it is currently being run like one. Unless changed, S.S. is destined to fail.
Which also differentiates SS from a ponzi scheme. A ponzi shceme cannot be saved from failure.
Yes? No? Why?