Ponzi Scheme

[Gipper]

Perry is right of course...SS is a ponzi scheme, but nothing gets the left more upset then an R politician criticizing SS....other than maybe baby murder.

From the Great One:

"They've called it 'insurance' to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term 'insurance' to sell it to the people," Ronald Reagan said about Social Security in his landmark 1964 speech, A Time for Choosing.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washington*************/#ixzz1XYtAHUKq

Kind of sounds familiar...similar to the Obamacare.

"There is no fund," Reagan continued, "because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security is as of this moment $298 billion in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing just that."
Reagan's description of Social Security is as true today as it was then. And conservative Republicans have been making the same case for almost 50 years. The election victories in 2010 of Republican Sens. Ron Johnson in Wisconsin and Marco Rubio in Florida show that the American people are increasingly open to this message.

Now here is Merriam-Webster's definition of a "pyramid scheme," which they note is also called a "Ponzi scheme" in the United States: "A dishonest and usually illegal business in which many people are persuaded to invest their money and the money of later investors is used to pay the people who invested first." To recap, Social Security was dishonestly sold as "insurance" when really it is no such thing, and the funds Americans pay into the program today are really paying for the benefits of those who contributed to the program years ago. Sounds like a textbook definition of "Ponzi scheme" to us.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washington*************/opinion/2011/09/two-cheers-perry-provocateur#ixzz1XYtm1aeG

Now libs, before you condemn me for wanting all old people to die, please try to understand. SS needs reforming in a big way if it is to continue. Doing nothing is the worst thing, which appears to be your plan. I and many on the right believe reforming the program is needed, not discontinuing it entirely...which no doubt you assumed.

 

[GenSeneca]

I and many on the right believe reforming the program is needed, not discontinuing it entirely...which no doubt you assumed.

The only way to reform such a ponzi scheme is to change it into a program of full blown redistribution of wealth. That's where things such as "means testing" comes into play. You are forced to pay into the program your entire life but if you lived responsibly, and are deemed to have "too much" money when you retire, then you get zero, zip, nada-damn thing back.

 

[Gipper]

The only way to reform such a ponzi scheme is to change it into a program of full blown redistribution of wealth. That's where things such as "means testing" comes into play. You are forced to pay into the program your entire life but if you lived responsibly, and are deemed to have "too much" money when you retire, then you get zero, zip, nada-damn thing back.

If that is the only reform, I am against it. Making SS a welfare program is not a solution.

I do not believe that is the only option. The program can be immediately "fixed" by raising the retirement age. Lets say we raise it to 75 or 80.

I wonder what the libs and dems would say about that. Would they respond much like the Euros are to changes in their government social welfare/retirement plans...with violence?

 

[GenSeneca]

I do not believe that is the only option. The program can be immediately "fixed" by raising the retirement age. Lets say we raise it to 75 or 80.

It would still be a ponzi scheme. All you would accomplish is making the number of people at the top of the pyramid smaller... which is exactly what means testing does only by a different method.

I wonder what the libs and dems would say about that. Would they respond much like the Euros are to changes in their government social welfare/retirement plans...with violence?

The left relies on the use of force to get what they want. If they can't get government to use it's monopoly on the legal use of force to get their way, they will resort to illegal uses of force... As we saw in Pandora's thread.

 

[Pandora]

I think everyone knows its a Ponzi Scheme

that is just a negative term so no one wants who is for it wants to agree the naming of "Ponzi Scheme''

 

[Dr.Who]

To reform it, participation would have to be voluntary. Of course most ponzi schemes are voluntary so that would not change its status as a ponzi scheme - it would only make it better in other ways.

For it to stop being a ponzi scheme it would have to operate as a real insurance program in which ones benefits were paid for through ones own premiums. It would have to follow real actuarial principles.

One definition of a ponzi scheme is:

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. "

Social security is often called an investment and it does rely on new "investors" to keep from collapsing. Does it meet the criteria of being a fraud? Well politicians have often promised that a person will receive a certain amount back at a later time. But this is clearly false. The deception qualifies it as a fraud. Legally it is not insurance and it is not an investment. legally there is no obligation to pay anyone anything. It is often claimed not to be redistribution since money generally does not move from rich to poor. In reality it moves from one generation to another - still redistribution. In short money is moved by force from a later generation to an earlier one with no promise that the money will actually ever be received by that earlier generation - that is worse than a typical ponzi.

The first generation truly benefited the most as they paid in nothing and received money. The second generation were relieved from the obligation of caring for their parents but this weakened the fabric of the family. Parents no longer had an obligation to their children. Normal family ties based on love and caretaking were replaced by a simple forced monetary exchange. When the ties that bind are replaced by money look out for a society! In fact, fatherlessness is a major problem which results in more harm than is commonly recognized (though most people know that the recent mob attacks are carried out be people who have as a common denominator that they are fatherless).

The last generation will be the ones who have paid in the most but will receive nothing. They won't even have the family ties in which their children will take care of them in their relative poverty.

 

[steveox]

Ponzi Scheme?

 

[Gipper]

It would still be a ponzi scheme. All you would accomplish is making the number of people at the top of the pyramid smaller... which is exactly what means testing does only by a different method.


The left relies on the use of force to get what they want. If they can't get government to use it's monopoly on the legal use of force to get their way, they will resort to illegal uses of force... As we saw in Pandora's thread.

Yes even after reforming it, it will still be a ponzi scheme. But, the genie is out of the bottle. There is no way to put it back. A vast majority of Americans want it to continue.

Are you suggesting SS be eliminated?

And, the left always resorts to violence. It is one of the many disgusting traits they possess. And as was stated by a lefty in Pandy's thread, they see nothing wrong with using violence to get what they want. If the TP or conservatives used violence, they would go crazy! Hypocrites!!!

 

[Gipper]

To reform it, participation would have to be voluntary. Of course most ponzi schemes are voluntary so that would not change its status as a ponzi scheme - it would only make it better in other ways.

For it to stop being a ponzi scheme it would have to operate as a real insurance program in which ones benefits were paid for through ones own premiums. It would have to follow real actuarial principles.

One definition of a ponzi scheme is:

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. "

Social security is often called an investment and it does rely on new "investors" to keep from collapsing. Does it meet the criteria of being a fraud? Well politicians have often promised that a person will receive a certain amount back at a later time. But this is clearly false. The deception qualifies it as a fraud. Legally it is not insurance and it is not an investment. legally there is no obligation to pay anyone anything. It is often claimed not to be redistribution since money generally does not move from rich to poor. In reality it moves from one generation to another - still redistribution. In short money is moved by force from a later generation to an earlier one with no promise that the money will actually ever be received by that earlier generation - that is worse than a typical ponzi.

The first generation truly benefited the most as they paid in nothing and received money. The second generation were relieved from the obligation of caring for their parents but this weakened the fabric of the family. Parents no longer had an obligation to their children. Normal family ties based on love and caretaking were replaced by a simple forced monetary exchange. When the ties that bind are replaced by money look out for a society! In fact, fatherlessness is a major problem which results in more harm than is commonly recognized (though most people know that the recent mob attacks are carried out be people who have as a common denominator that they are fatherless).

The last generation will be the ones who have paid in the most but will receive nothing. They won't even have the family ties in which their children will take care of them in their relative poverty.

FOR EXAMPLE:
I have a family member who is 92 years old and in good health. He retired early and started collecting at 62. Being an immigrate after WWII, he worked less than 30 years in this country. He has collected vastly more from SS then he ever contributed even after inflation. My guess is the rate of return he earned on the money contributed to SS, has to be approaching 1000%. What a great investment!

His wife is 12 years younger and in good health. She never worked outside the home. She will continue to collect SS after her husband's death until she dies.

Solution:
The retirement age must be raised significantly to take into account the much longer life spans Americans currently enjoy. It needs to be returned to its original structure.

 

[Pandora]

FOR EXAMPLE:
I have a family member who is 92 years old and in good health. He retired early and started collecting at 62. Being an immigrate after WWII, he worked less than 30 years in this country. He has collected vastly more from SS then he ever contributed even after inflation. My guess is the rate of return he earned on the money contributed to SS, has to be approaching 1000%. What a great investment!

His wife is 12 years younger and in good health. She never worked outside the home. She will continue to collect SS after her husband's death until she dies.

Solution:
The retirement age must be raised significantly to take into account the much longer life spans Americans currently enjoy. It needs to be returned to its original structure.

if they raise the retirement age, i want my money back with interest! I can manage my own damn money and I don't want to work till I cant move. I want to retire while I am still able to do something with my retirement. I don't mind putting my own money away for it, its just hard to put enough away while i am being forced to contribute to SS

 

[Dr.Who]

F
The retirement age must be raised significantly to take into account the much longer life spans Americans currently enjoy. It needs to be returned to its original structure.

I understand that originally it paid much less and that for each person who collected a couple hundred paid in. today for each person that collects about three pay in - clearly unsustainable.

Reform needs to include:

An actual promise that a certain benefit level will be paid.
Voluntary enrollment.
Option to opt out based on specified rules.
Moneys not mingled with other funds.
Moneys invested at a decent rate of return.
Someone other than the government runs it because it is a conflict of interest when the gov runs it.

Could it still redistribute money? I don't see why not as long as the people who join are aware of that.

Could people who have not paid enough premiums join? That ruins the system, no.

Might it pay out higher amounts to people who want it to cover all of their retirement rather than just some of it? Sure as long as those people pay higher premiums.

Wouldn't it just be a gov backed annuity then? Yes, the rules that congress set up to make annuities fair and legal are appropriate and since they are appropriate they should be applied to SS.

 

[Gipper]

if they raise the retirement age, i want my money back with interest! I can manage my own damn money and I don't want to work till I cant move. I want to retire while I am still able to do something with my retirement. I don't mind putting my own money away for it, its just hard to put enough away while i am being forced to contribute to SS

You are dreaming and you know it. You know they can't give back your money with interest. There is NO money to give back.

Secondly, if you think you can "retire" and do something on SS benefits, think again. The benefit is not enough to enjoy a nice retirement.

Most Americans have a life span approaching 85 years of age. Retiring at 62 or 65 makes no sense. I have no intention of NOT working at that age. How boring would that be???

 

[Dr.Who]

Its a good thing this debate is happening. In a country where most people like SS this debate can only move public opinion to the right.

 

[Dr.Who]

You are dreaming and you know it. You know they can't give back your money with interest. There is NO money to give back.

No they cant give all the money back. But if enough people demand everything then they just might have to give something.

I would be happy if they just had stopped forcing me and others to pay in. And just to shake things up I should mention that when I stopped earning a paycheck a few years back but my wife kept working as a public school teacher we did stop paying in. Apparently union members are not required to pay into SS.

 

[GenSeneca]

Are you suggesting SS be eliminated?

I think Dr.Who is right on... If SS is to continue, it needs drastic reforms, it would have to become a legitimate system that's privately operated. Allowing the government to control the largest system of fraud on the planet will only lead to ruinous results.