3 ms·

Sigh. This guy's a Rhodes Scholar, but gets it all wrong. Social Security and Medicare are not Ponzi schemes or pyramid schemes (There's a difference between Po

Sigh. This guy's a Rhodes Scholar, but gets it all wrong. Social Security and Medicare are not Ponzi schemes or pyramid schemes (There's a difference between Ponzi and pyramid schemes, but for the sake of argument, let's pretend they're the same.) Medicare and Social Security are just a tax. Collectively we've decided we'll all take care of our old and infirm. We spend the money we take in every year, and besides the occasional Congress deciding to raid the Social Security trust fund, we just take care of people. As a percentage, are the number of people paying in decreasing, sure, but there's a number of quick solutions: either move the age at which you can collect, or keep the benefits fixed (or even shrink them). Solvency returned. HN: Don't fall in to the trap. People are trying to convince you that SS and Medicare are insolvent, doomed to fail, etc. They are not. They are some of the most successful, and helpful programs the US has ever created. They are a simple wealth distribution model, where we've decided there's a basic level of livability that humans can't fall beneath. Don't fall into the trap of believing oligarchs and libertarians. The two programs have ushered in the boom since the great depression, and allowed access to healthcare for people who otherwise would just die.

ikeboy 7y ago
They mainly redistribute wealth from those with low life expectancy to those with high life expectancy. It's been calculated that for certain groups with particularly low life expectancies (for instance, African American men), social security is actually a net loss for them, as they pay in more to the system than they take out, on average.
- nappy-doo 7y ago
  That's a specious argument. For example, I might not have children, does that mean I shouldn't pay school tax? No, we all pay the tax, whether I directly benefit from them or not. It's a social contract. Allowing for special classes is the problem, not a solution. It is the collective good we are striving for. Otherwise, we end up in a situation of the tragedy of the commons, and no one wins. Perhaps, instead, we should also focus on extending life expectancies for African American men, rather than allowing them to not contribute to Social Security.
  - ikeboy 7y ago
    The alternative is privatized social security with payments based on the market price of an annuity. It makes no sense to redistribute wealth from those poor in years to those rich in years. You can require everyone to pay in without also having a backwards redistribution program.
    - nappy-doo 7y ago
      We have that. It's called Social Security. There's nothing to say I will live long enough (under your plan) to collect my just deserves. In other words, I have been taxed under my whole life, and never saw a benefit. Just replace the word "annuity" in your plan, with "public trust" and you have social security.
      - ikeboy 7y ago
        We don't have that. We have some populations that are charged significantly more than market value for their annuities and some that are charged significantly less. Social security is a combination of mandatory purchasing of annuities plus redistribution; we should nix the perverse redistribution aspect.
engineer_22 7y ago
The solutions you have proposed ARE the problem.. the social contract is that you will pay a certain amount over your lifetime and receive a certain amount at a certain age. To change that contract as you have proposed is violence against the young. I have re-read your comment several times. You are papering over the facts with wishes. Your comment is agist propoganda.
- nappy-doo 7y ago
  No, the social contract I am an engaging in is, "I will take care of some of the elders, and when I reach an older age, someone will help take care of me." There is no agreement on ages, amount of benefits, or anything else specified, just that it could exist. I proposed solutions that are one possible answer, there are others: perhaps removing the income cap, or upping the contributions from employers who recently won a 40% reduction in taxes with the tax cuts? Maybe decreasing benefits now is also a possible solution (again, as I proposed). The point being, Social Security and Medicare ARE NOT (by definition) Ponzi or Pyramid schemes. Ponzi schemes are INVESTMENT vehicles. There is no investment in this case. Pyramid schemes are (again by definition) structures where recruitment and growing the organization are requirements. Social Security doesn't require this, and to argue otherwise is arguing in bad faith.
kamaal 7y ago
>>Medicare and Social Security are just a tax. Calling things by different names changes nothing. The generic point is that an ever increasing group of people call upon contributions from a shrinking set of people to get paid(Pensions, SS, Medicare etc). Note this is not an investment. It's not like the older people invested in better schools, colleges and healthcare, that the people passing out will spin new methods of making more money with less people. Once you arrive here. You can even call it tax or whatever and it changes nothing in terms of basic math. The only reason something like SS/pensions has not collapsed yet is because they use increasing percentage of taxes to pay for it, than spend it on college or infrastructure or something else. Its not very surprising that people are in awe of Chinese infrastructure or the British healthcare or German education system. You get what you invest in. The US invests in elderly people.

ikeboy 7y ago

They mainly redistribute wealth from those with low life expectancy to those with high life expectancy. It's been calculated that for certain groups with particularly low life expectancies (for instance, African American men), social security is actually a net loss for them, as they pay in more to the system than they take out, on average.

nappy-doo 7y ago
That's a specious argument. For example, I might not have children, does that mean I shouldn't pay school tax? No, we all pay the tax, whether I directly benefit from them or not. It's a social contract. Allowing for special classes is the problem, not a solution. It is the collective good we are striving for. Otherwise, we end up in a situation of the tragedy of the commons, and no one wins. Perhaps, instead, we should also focus on extending life expectancies for African American men, rather than allowing them to not contribute to Social Security.
- ikeboy 7y ago
  The alternative is privatized social security with payments based on the market price of an annuity. It makes no sense to redistribute wealth from those poor in years to those rich in years. You can require everyone to pay in without also having a backwards redistribution program.
  - nappy-doo 7y ago
    We have that. It's called Social Security. There's nothing to say I will live long enough (under your plan) to collect my just deserves. In other words, I have been taxed under my whole life, and never saw a benefit. Just replace the word "annuity" in your plan, with "public trust" and you have social security.
    - ikeboy 7y ago
      We don't have that. We have some populations that are charged significantly more than market value for their annuities and some that are charged significantly less. Social security is a combination of mandatory purchasing of annuities plus redistribution; we should nix the perverse redistribution aspect.

engineer_22 7y ago

The solutions you have proposed ARE the problem.. the social contract is that you will pay a certain amount over your lifetime and receive a certain amount at a certain age. To change that contract as you have proposed is violence against the young. I have re-read your comment several times. You are papering over the facts with wishes. Your comment is agist propoganda.

nappy-doo 7y ago
No, the social contract I am an engaging in is, "I will take care of some of the elders, and when I reach an older age, someone will help take care of me." There is no agreement on ages, amount of benefits, or anything else specified, just that it could exist. I proposed solutions that are one possible answer, there are others: perhaps removing the income cap, or upping the contributions from employers who recently won a 40% reduction in taxes with the tax cuts? Maybe decreasing benefits now is also a possible solution (again, as I proposed). The point being, Social Security and Medicare ARE NOT (by definition) Ponzi or Pyramid schemes. Ponzi schemes are INVESTMENT vehicles. There is no investment in this case. Pyramid schemes are (again by definition) structures where recruitment and growing the organization are requirements. Social Security doesn't require this, and to argue otherwise is arguing in bad faith.

kamaal 7y ago

>>Medicare and Social Security are just a tax. Calling things by different names changes nothing. The generic point is that an ever increasing group of people call upon contributions from a shrinking set of people to get paid(Pensions, SS, Medicare etc). Note this is not an investment. It's not like the older people invested in better schools, colleges and healthcare, that the people passing out will spin new methods of making more money with less people. Once you arrive here. You can even call it tax or whatever and it changes nothing in terms of basic math. The only reason something like SS/pensions has not collapsed yet is because they use increasing percentage of taxes to pay for it, than spend it on college or infrastructure or something else. Its not very surprising that people are in awe of Chinese infrastructure or the British healthcare or German education system. You get what you invest in. The US invests in elderly people.