Right-wing billionaires have long wanted to shred the safety net. Under Trump, they’re using lies and fears over the deficit to debilitate Social Security.

  • Sludgeyy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment that pays existing investors with money from new investors. The scheme operators don’t actually invest the money, and the scheme collapses when it can’t attract new investors.

    If the United States didn’t have younger people to pay into the system, new investors, the “ponzi scheme” collapses.

    The US government, the scheme operator, doesn’t invest the money it receives. Instead, it hands it to previous investors

    Now I’m not against a national insurance or something. But we know even with new investors the SS fund is going to run out.

    If the government saved the money it was paid and treated it like a real savings account or treated it like insurance.

    But the way it is now, it can’t run forever. Just like a ponzi scheme

    • mrbeano@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      It IS a scheme, in that it’s a system, plan, or action.

      It is NOT a Ponzi Scheme because it does not promise investment returns or exaggerate profitability.

      It’s there to keep retirees & the disabled out of abject poverty, which does not provide returns you can usually see on a balance sheet. Greater good & all that…

      • Sludgeyy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        I’m not arguing if the system is good or bad. I think there should be a good retirement system in place.

        Average person makes 65k in America

        SS is 12.4% usually split between employee and employer.

        That’s 8k a year.

        Average SS monthly payment is ~2k

        18 to 62 is 44 years of payment.

        65k × 12.4% = ~8k per year payment

        44 × 8 = ~350k

        62 to 78 is 16 years. 2k × 12 = 24k per year

        16 × 24k = ~384k

        So looking right now if I made average pay, paid SS when I was 18, worked until 62, collected SS at 62, died at 78. I would be looking at a 10% return on my investment

        Even more if I live past 78

        If I came to you said said. “Would you invest for the next 44 years and I’ll give you your money back after and 10% more over 16 years, but I’m going to have to have new people entering my “scheme” to pay you…”

        That would be a ponzi scheme.

        If the government simply kept the money paid and then paid it back with interest earned loaning it out until time to pay. SS wouldn’t be in a crisis.

        • mrbeano@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          Social Security is an investment in the health of our society, it’s not a financial instrument. You can’t pool risk and get predictable returns without cutting corners & dropping high-risk members (hello health insurance industry).

          It’s not a Ponzi Scheme by definition.

          • Sludgeyy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            24 hours ago

            Social Security is an investment

            A financial investment?

            It’s not a Ponzi Scheme by definition.

            So you’re saying “they” don’t define it as a ponzi scheme, so it can’t be one?

            Gee that’s great

            • FMT99@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              14 hours ago

              It’s an “investment” the same way insurance is an investment. We “invest” in social stability. Lots of people never make it to retirement age, for them SS is likely a net loss.

              But as a society we like the idea that the elderly don’t go homeless if they don’t have means of their own. We like that people who lose their jobs don’t lose their daily bread. That’s why we have social security. And we accept that in some cases we’re the ones that end up paying a bit more than we’re getting.

              • Sludgeyy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                6 hours ago

                You are trying to argue if SS is good or bad.

                I agree that the idea behind SS is a good one

                Lots of people never make it to retirement age. For them, SS is likely a net loss

                A lot of people are living longer collecting SS for longer. One of the reasons it’s failing. One of the reasons they keep pushing the retirement age up.

                Imagine making ~15k a year. Paying 1k per year for SS. And then never collecting it.

                Someone making minimum is paying 1/15 of their pay for SS

                These are the people who are absolutely going to need SS

                If the business didn’t have to pay SS too and could give it to the worker they could pay workers more.

                Which helps these people more, increasing wages by 12.4% for 40+ years or hopefully collecting SS when you’re 62-67?

                If they saved the money and got 4% interest (10yr bond is 4.32%). They would have 200k saved for retirement.

                They have been living on $1250 a month. That’s 13 years of retirement in 200k.

                That’s with the government “not helping them”

                Using that 200k to buy a house for retirement could even be a better investment than having to rent when retired. But taking it from them to hopefully give it back does have it’s downsides.

                They system relies on new wealthy investors and for some investors to not collect. You couldn’t run a traditional “saving account” like it because it would be a ponzi scheme.