3 ms·

Being a 22 year old myself, I'm grateful that nothing in here is surprising to me and that my parents made me start a savings account when I was young (like 10

Being a 22 year old myself, I'm grateful that nothing in here is surprising to me and that my parents made me start a savings account when I was young (like 10 or something). To be honest, I don't think I've met anyone from my generation who expects to see money from social security when they retire.

runT1ME 16y ago
A government mandated Ponzi scheme. Brilliant. :(
- jojopotato 16y ago
  I don't quite get why people keep calling Social Security a ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme is defrauding investors by saying that there has been growth in the assets and it's paying out dividends, SS doesn't make any claim like that. The real problem people are complaining about is the burden that was shared by many (by having lots of kids) is going to be shared by fewer and fewer people.
  - runT1ME 16y ago
    Social Security's dividends are paid for by the new investors buying in, and THOSE investors will only be paid out if even more investors enter the scheme.
    - stretchwithme 16y ago
      and if new "investor" don't live much longer than those who paid in before. which, of course, is where this scheme really breaks down.
  - shawndrost 16y ago
    Wait a second -- to be strictly accurate, Social Security does explicitly state those two things. WRT "growth in assets": they send out letters to all enrollees stating the amount of money that each has coming to them. and the number is higher than the amount the enrollee has paid in (to reflect the interest that "will accumulate"). WRT "paying out dividends": the system is paying out dividends, obviously. I know some of the people getting checks. Not sure what you meant by this. I think it's a bit misleading to call Social Security a ponzi scheme -- mostly because it implies a ringleader, which I observe to be a dangerously appealing falsehood to many -- but your observations seem to be false.
    - stretchwithme 16y ago
      there was a guy responsible for starting it if I recall. was he the ringleader? either way, people have the right to the results of their own work and this scheme violates that right.
  - Yzupnick 16y ago
    I think people mean pyramid scheme.
  - ataggart 16y ago
    You're being overly narrow in your definition of a ponzi scheme. It's simply a scheme whereby, for an individual, the amount of money they receive will exceed the money they spend only so long as the ratio of new members to old members exceeds one. It's not a real investment as there is no productivity increase occurring; it's just an accounting game. And that's precisely how Social Security operates, and precisely why it will run into problems.
    - jojopotato 16y ago
      You're right, I am probably being to literal in my definition of a ponzi scheme. I definitely agree that Social Security is going to go through growing pains as the population demographics change and benefits won't be the exact same as the previous generation, but I feel like people use the term "ponzi scheme" to smear the whole idea of Social Security rather than articulating why we shouldn't have it.
      - ataggart 16y ago
        Given that the structure of Social Security does conform to a ponzi scheme, it's a smear only insofar as ponzi schemes are "bad".
jsz0 16y ago
Social Security is good till 2040 at minimum. Some modest adjustments can extend it even further and more radical changes gets it to the 22nd century. All of this is possible without even touching the ~50% of the budget that goes towards military spending or raising payroll taxes significantly. My personal opinion is we shouldn't even consider cutting a single social safety net until military spending has been slashed. Even China is now limiting the growth of military spending yet in the US this topic is totally off the table.
- rflrob 16y ago
  From your tone, it sounds like youre critical of the original article, but Social Security collapsing in 2040 means, for anyone in their 20s, that they wont see a payout. What was proposed in the article was, to my twenty something view, "modest adjustments".
- hga 16y ago
  Social Security isn't "good" for last year (FY2010) and so on, let alone 2040. Those funds in the "lockbox"? Spent on the general budget as soon as they were received, and right now SS expenditures are exceeding their dedicated taxes, requiring money from the general budget. (According to this source http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html the projected deficit was going to be $41 billion as of the beginning of August, a couple of months before the end of FY 2010). According to Wikiepedia FY 2010's DoD budget, all categories except the black budget was $663.8 billion; that's a bit less than the year's Social Security expenditures. As for it's relationship to the whole budget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_defense_budget#Military_budget_and_total_US_federal_spending http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_defense_budget#Military_budg...): "The U.S. Department of Defense budget accounted in fiscal year 2010 for about 19% of the United States federal budgeted expenditures and 28% of estimated tax revenues. Including non-DOD expenditures, defense spending was approximately 25–29% of budgeted expenditures and 38–44% of estimated tax revenues." The "including non-DOD" apparently includes: "This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance, cleanup, and production, which is in the Department of Energy budget, Veterans Affairs, the Treasury Department's payments in pensions to military retirees and widows and their families, interest on debt incurred in past wars, or State Department financing of foreign arms sales and militarily-related development assistance. Neither does it include defense spending that is not military in nature, such as the Department of Homeland Security, counter-terrorism spending by the FBI, and intelligence-gathering spending by NASA." A substantial fraction of which can't be reasonably scored as "military spending".
sliverstorm 16y ago
> To be honest, I don't think I've met anyone from my generation who expects to see money from social security when they retire. Me neither, and I'm 22 as well. So long as we're not just being manipulated, I think it's probably a good thing. Hopefully it will make us more independent and self-sufficient in the long run.

runT1ME 16y ago

A government mandated Ponzi scheme. Brilliant. :(

jojopotato 16y ago
I don't quite get why people keep calling Social Security a ponzi scheme. A ponzi scheme is defrauding investors by saying that there has been growth in the assets and it's paying out dividends, SS doesn't make any claim like that. The real problem people are complaining about is the burden that was shared by many (by having lots of kids) is going to be shared by fewer and fewer people.
- runT1ME 16y ago
  Social Security's dividends are paid for by the new investors buying in, and THOSE investors will only be paid out if even more investors enter the scheme.
  - stretchwithme 16y ago
    and if new "investor" don't live much longer than those who paid in before. which, of course, is where this scheme really breaks down.
- shawndrost 16y ago
  Wait a second -- to be strictly accurate, Social Security does explicitly state those two things. WRT "growth in assets": they send out letters to all enrollees stating the amount of money that each has coming to them. and the number is higher than the amount the enrollee has paid in (to reflect the interest that "will accumulate"). WRT "paying out dividends": the system is paying out dividends, obviously. I know some of the people getting checks. Not sure what you meant by this. I think it's a bit misleading to call Social Security a ponzi scheme -- mostly because it implies a ringleader, which I observe to be a dangerously appealing falsehood to many -- but your observations seem to be false.
  - stretchwithme 16y ago
    there was a guy responsible for starting it if I recall. was he the ringleader? either way, people have the right to the results of their own work and this scheme violates that right.
- Yzupnick 16y ago
  I think people mean pyramid scheme.
- ataggart 16y ago
  You're being overly narrow in your definition of a ponzi scheme. It's simply a scheme whereby, for an individual, the amount of money they receive will exceed the money they spend only so long as the ratio of new members to old members exceeds one. It's not a real investment as there is no productivity increase occurring; it's just an accounting game. And that's precisely how Social Security operates, and precisely why it will run into problems.
  - jojopotato 16y ago
    You're right, I am probably being to literal in my definition of a ponzi scheme. I definitely agree that Social Security is going to go through growing pains as the population demographics change and benefits won't be the exact same as the previous generation, but I feel like people use the term "ponzi scheme" to smear the whole idea of Social Security rather than articulating why we shouldn't have it.
    - ataggart 16y ago
      Given that the structure of Social Security does conform to a ponzi scheme, it's a smear only insofar as ponzi schemes are "bad".

jsz0 16y ago

Social Security is good till 2040 at minimum. Some modest adjustments can extend it even further and more radical changes gets it to the 22nd century. All of this is possible without even touching the ~50% of the budget that goes towards military spending or raising payroll taxes significantly. My personal opinion is we shouldn't even consider cutting a single social safety net until military spending has been slashed. Even China is now limiting the growth of military spending yet in the US this topic is totally off the table.

rflrob 16y ago
From your tone, it sounds like youre critical of the original article, but Social Security collapsing in 2040 means, for anyone in their 20s, that they wont see a payout. What was proposed in the article was, to my twenty something view, "modest adjustments".
hga 16y ago
Social Security isn't "good" for last year (FY2010) and so on, let alone 2040. Those funds in the "lockbox"? Spent on the general budget as soon as they were received, and right now SS expenditures are exceeding their dedicated taxes, requiring money from the general budget. (According to this source http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html the projected deficit was going to be $41 billion as of the beginning of August, a couple of months before the end of FY 2010). According to Wikiepedia FY 2010's DoD budget, all categories except the black budget was $663.8 billion; that's a bit less than the year's Social Security expenditures. As for it's relationship to the whole budget (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_defense_budget#Military_budget_and_total_US_federal_spending http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_defense_budget#Military_budg...): "The U.S. Department of Defense budget accounted in fiscal year 2010 for about 19% of the United States federal budgeted expenditures and 28% of estimated tax revenues. Including non-DOD expenditures, defense spending was approximately 25–29% of budgeted expenditures and 38–44% of estimated tax revenues." The "including non-DOD" apparently includes: "This does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance, cleanup, and production, which is in the Department of Energy budget, Veterans Affairs, the Treasury Department's payments in pensions to military retirees and widows and their families, interest on debt incurred in past wars, or State Department financing of foreign arms sales and militarily-related development assistance. Neither does it include defense spending that is not military in nature, such as the Department of Homeland Security, counter-terrorism spending by the FBI, and intelligence-gathering spending by NASA." A substantial fraction of which can't be reasonably scored as "military spending".

sliverstorm 16y ago

> To be honest, I don't think I've met anyone from my generation who expects to see money from social security when they retire. Me neither, and I'm 22 as well. So long as we're not just being manipulated, I think it's probably a good thing. Hopefully it will make us more independent and self-sufficient in the long run.