3 ms·

Upvoted you to try to counter-act the downvotes, which I am really confused by. Social security is a pay-as-you-go pension plan, like pretty much almost every p

Upvoted you to try to counter-act the downvotes, which I am really confused by. Social security is a pay-as-you-go pension plan, like pretty much almost every public pension plan in the Western world. I understand the comparison to Ponzi schemes, but I consider these comparisons rather hyperbolic. The intent of a pay-as-you-go pension never is fraud. There are some definite problems with pay-as-you-go systems, especially now due to the fertility decline in the West, but the issues do not stem from pure malice.

Frondo 10y ago
That's it! That's the whole crux of the matter. A ponzi scheme has an intent to defraud. That's why they're illegal. Social security has no intent to defraud. It's not "legal cause the gubmint says so," it's legal because it's not a fraudulent money-making scheme designed to enrich the leader.
- xienze 10y ago
  Splitting hairs. Of course the intent isn't to defraud, but they function in the same manner (need a constant supply of new investors [workers] to pay off the old investors [workers]) and have the same failure mode.
  - soundwave106 10y ago
    No, not really splitting hairs, as the solution for each is consequently is going to consequently be different. Ponzi schemes get banned because they are a form of fraud and have little redeeming value. The solution to a Ponzi scheme is to shut it down and arrest the con artist. Social Security and other pay-as-you-go schemes aim to reduce poverty, especially elderly poverty. By this measure, it has succeeded quite well (http://www.nber.org/bah/summer04/w10466.html http://www.nber.org/bah/summer04/w10466.html), and the probable reason pay as you go was chosen I imagine was to provide immediate benefit (recall this scheme was launched during the Great Depression). I would consider it radical (and would want one to provide considerable justification) if one wanted to ditch Social Security entirely. A better debate in my mind, of course, would be whether to phase Social Security into a fully funded model versus pay-as-you-go model. I can buy that kind of argument, a fully funded retirement scheme is more secure than a PAYGO type. But even as it stands, the current Social Security gap doesn't sound like a complete disaster. Part of it actually is because Social Security is not completely pay as you go -- Congress raised payroll taxes in 1983 in part to cover this gap (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/18/5-facts-about-social-security/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/18/5-facts-abou...). Part of it is because we have some variables to play with -- raising the retirement age or raising the payroll tax cap, for instance. Medicare actually sounds like its in worse shape at this moment.

Frondo 10y ago

That's it! That's the whole crux of the matter. A ponzi scheme has an intent to defraud. That's why they're illegal. Social security has no intent to defraud. It's not "legal cause the gubmint says so," it's legal because it's not a fraudulent money-making scheme designed to enrich the leader.

xienze 10y ago
Splitting hairs. Of course the intent isn't to defraud, but they function in the same manner (need a constant supply of new investors [workers] to pay off the old investors [workers]) and have the same failure mode.
- soundwave106 10y ago
  No, not really splitting hairs, as the solution for each is consequently is going to consequently be different. Ponzi schemes get banned because they are a form of fraud and have little redeeming value. The solution to a Ponzi scheme is to shut it down and arrest the con artist. Social Security and other pay-as-you-go schemes aim to reduce poverty, especially elderly poverty. By this measure, it has succeeded quite well (http://www.nber.org/bah/summer04/w10466.html http://www.nber.org/bah/summer04/w10466.html), and the probable reason pay as you go was chosen I imagine was to provide immediate benefit (recall this scheme was launched during the Great Depression). I would consider it radical (and would want one to provide considerable justification) if one wanted to ditch Social Security entirely. A better debate in my mind, of course, would be whether to phase Social Security into a fully funded model versus pay-as-you-go model. I can buy that kind of argument, a fully funded retirement scheme is more secure than a PAYGO type. But even as it stands, the current Social Security gap doesn't sound like a complete disaster. Part of it actually is because Social Security is not completely pay as you go -- Congress raised payroll taxes in 1983 in part to cover this gap (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/18/5-facts-about-social-security/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/08/18/5-facts-abou...). Part of it is because we have some variables to play with -- raising the retirement age or raising the payroll tax cap, for instance. Medicare actually sounds like its in worse shape at this moment.