3 ms·

Not true. See the definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme Insurance is not a scheme "destined to coll

Not true. See the definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme Insurance is not a scheme "destined to collapse" when it runs out of new investors. Insurance is perfectly sustainable. In fact, some of the oldest companies in business today are insurance companies. Social security is currently "designed to collapse" as the trustees report has warned for years. The program will run out of money sometime fairly soon unless the benefits are cut or the taxes raised. In fact, it has already collapsed several times and a new program has been reinvented, also named Social Security. Initially the payroll tax was 1% and the benefits constituted enough to live on.

gnaritas 16y ago
That link supports me, not you. As I already said, Social Security doesn't promise anyone a profit, as long as benefits are managed properly, it can continue indefinitely. It specifically relies on people dying before they receive back what they put in. Social Security is perfectly sustainable, they simply have to cut benefits to an appropriate level or raise the retirement age. You clearly have some personal bias against Social Security that's making you not see it rationally.
- grandalf 16y ago
  How is it sustainable if it has to be redefined every few years? How is it sustainable if it will need to be turned into a welfare program resulting in all the money many of us have put into it not being returned at all?
  - gnaritas 16y ago
    Lifespans aren't static, nor can the retirement age be. Continual adjustments have to be expected. The whole point of the program was to provide income for old people the last few years of their lives, not to allow them to live for 30 years after retirement. On your last point, you're simply making that up. Assuming you live long enough to reach retirement age, you will get benefits. The idea that you won't get benefits is based on absurd projections that wrongly assume the retirement age will never change. That's simply not going to happen, benefits/age will simply be adjusted to compensate and keep the program for those within a few years of the average lifespan, as it was intended. You've fallen for political scare tactics of those opposed to the very idea of social security because they're opposed to all government assistance and anything even slightly socialist. Benefits simply have to be adjusted so payouts don't exceed payins and we're not using debt to support people. For the boomer generation, that sucks, because they're huge and gen X isn't. For gen X, that's great, because they're small and gen Y is huge.

gnaritas 16y ago

That link supports me, not you. As I already said, Social Security doesn't promise anyone a profit, as long as benefits are managed properly, it can continue indefinitely. It specifically relies on people dying before they receive back what they put in. Social Security is perfectly sustainable, they simply have to cut benefits to an appropriate level or raise the retirement age. You clearly have some personal bias against Social Security that's making you not see it rationally.

grandalf 16y ago
How is it sustainable if it has to be redefined every few years? How is it sustainable if it will need to be turned into a welfare program resulting in all the money many of us have put into it not being returned at all?
- gnaritas 16y ago
  Lifespans aren't static, nor can the retirement age be. Continual adjustments have to be expected. The whole point of the program was to provide income for old people the last few years of their lives, not to allow them to live for 30 years after retirement. On your last point, you're simply making that up. Assuming you live long enough to reach retirement age, you will get benefits. The idea that you won't get benefits is based on absurd projections that wrongly assume the retirement age will never change. That's simply not going to happen, benefits/age will simply be adjusted to compensate and keep the program for those within a few years of the average lifespan, as it was intended. You've fallen for political scare tactics of those opposed to the very idea of social security because they're opposed to all government assistance and anything even slightly socialist. Benefits simply have to be adjusted so payouts don't exceed payins and we're not using debt to support people. For the boomer generation, that sucks, because they're huge and gen X isn't. For gen X, that's great, because they're small and gen Y is huge.