Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Social Insecurity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Social Insecurity

    Social Security Fund to Be Empty by 2037
    Infinity Art Glass - Fantastic local artist and Shocker fan
    RIP Guy Always A Shocker
    Carpenter Place - A blessing to many young girls/women
    ICT S.O.S - Great local cause fighting against human trafficking
    Wartick Insurance Agency - Saved me money with more coverage.
    Save Shocker Sports - A rallying cry

  • #2
    Yes, It Is a Ponzi Scheme
    Texas governor Rick Perry is being criticized for calling Social Security a "Ponzi scheme." Even Mitt Romney is reportedly preparing to attack him for holding such a radical view. But if anything, Perry was being too kind.

    The original Ponzi scheme was the brainchild of Charles Ponzi. Starting in 1916, the poor but enterprising Italian immigrant convinced people to allow him to invest their money. However, Ponzi never actually made any investments. He simply took the money he was given by later investors and gave it to his early investors, providing those early investors with a handsome profit. He then used these satisfied early investors as advertisements to get more investors. Unfortunately, in order to keep paying previous investors, Ponzi had to continue finding more and more new investors. Eventually, he couldn't expand the number of new investors fast enough, and the scheme collapsed. Ponzi was convicted of fraud and sent to prison.

    Social Security, on the other hand, forces people to invest in it through a mandatory payroll tax. A small portion of that money is used to buy special-issue Treasury bonds that the government will eventually have to repay, but the vast majority of the money you pay in Social Security taxes is not invested in anything. Instead, the money you pay into the system is used to pay benefits to those "early investors" who are retired today. When you retire, you will have to rely on the next generation of workers behind you to pay the taxes that will finance your benefits.

    As with Ponzi's scheme, this turns out to be a very good deal for those who got in early. The very first Social Security recipient, Ida Mae Fuller of Vermont, paid just $44 in Social Security taxes, but the long-lived Mrs. Fuller collected $20,993 in benefits. Such high returns were possible because there were many workers paying into the system and only a few retirees taking benefits out of it. In 1950, for instance, there were 16 workers supporting every retiree. Today, there are just over three. By around 2030, we will be down to just two.

    As with Ponzi's scheme, when the number of new contributors dries up, it will become impossible to continue to pay the promised benefits. Those early windfall returns are long gone. When today's young workers retire, they will receive returns far below what private investments could provide. Many will be lucky to break even.

    Eventually the pyramid crumbles.
    Infinity Art Glass - Fantastic local artist and Shocker fan
    RIP Guy Always A Shocker
    Carpenter Place - A blessing to many young girls/women
    ICT S.O.S - Great local cause fighting against human trafficking
    Wartick Insurance Agency - Saved me money with more coverage.
    Save Shocker Sports - A rallying cry

    Comment


    • #3
      solution - more babies. Or more immigration (who will have more babies).

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by SB Shock
        solution - more babies. Or more immigration (who will have more babies).
        My sarcasm meter is off again. That was sarcasm?
        Kung Wu say, man who read woman like book, prefer braille!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Kung Wu
          Originally posted by SB Shock
          solution - more babies. Or more immigration (who will have more babies).
          My sarcasm meter is off again. That was sarcasm?
          I am not sure it was sarcasm. Well, not full throated sarcasm anyway.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Kung Wu
            Originally posted by SB Shock
            solution - more babies. Or more immigration (who will have more babies).
            My sarcasm meter is off again. That was sarcasm?
            In any ponzi scheme u need to bring more investors in. Only 2 ways to do that is increase rate of population growth by encouraging more babies or by increasing immigration. The babies take longer to reap the benefits so it better to go with a two prong approach.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by SB Shock
              Originally posted by Kung Wu
              Originally posted by SB Shock
              solution - more babies. Or more immigration (who will have more babies).
              My sarcasm meter is off again. That was sarcasm?
              In any ponzi scheme u need to bring more investors in. Only 2 ways to do that is increase rate of population growth by encouraging more babies or by increasing immigration. The babies take longer to reap the benefits so it better to go with a two prong approach.
              Correct.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by SB Shock
                Originally posted by Kung Wu
                Originally posted by SB Shock
                solution - more babies. Or more immigration (who will have more babies).
                My sarcasm meter is off again. That was sarcasm?
                In any ponzi scheme u need to bring more investors in. Only 2 ways to do that is increase rate of population growth by encouraging more babies or by increasing immigration. The babies take longer to reap the benefits so it better to go with a two prong approach.
                OK, good, it was sarcasm. :)
                Kung Wu say, man who read woman like book, prefer braille!

                Comment

                Working...
                X