4 ms·

I mean that’s literally in the charter of SSI. It is a pay as you go system, that’s how it was setup. In the law, there is no promise of current money paying fo

by ivalm 5y ago

I mean that’s literally in the charter of SSI. It is a pay as you go system, that’s how it was setup. In the law, there is no promise of current money paying for future obligations and there are no “broken promises.” It’s not a piggy bank or a retirement account. Heck, I am a millennial many decades from retirement so I am one of the people who will be impacted. At the same time, expected lifespan in retirement has been steadily increasing since introduction of SSI so it’s not unreasonable for retirement age to increase. The problem of Ponzi scheme is that it advertises itself as an investment instrument where return on investment generates the cash flow. SSI never advertised itself like that, it is a non-discretionary program where SSI taxes are used to pay current obligations. If you ever believed something else then that on you not familiarizing yourself with the law that governs this program.

rufus_foreman 5y ago
"there is no promise of current money paying for future obligations and there are no broken promises" Tell them, not me. I get my money, the 20 somethings lose their money, I spend their money. I'm 100% OK with that. And it's still a Ponzi scheme. As long as we are all on the same page as to what the kids are funding here. You get 0 and no broken promises, OK kids?
- ivalm 5y ago
  But we don’t get 0? In the future there will be people working and paying social security taxes and those taxes will be used to fund social security payments. If the percentage of retirees is too large then that will lead to increase in retirement age until the percentage of retirees is balanced by the number of workers. With productivity gains due to automation hopefully we can increase number of retirees per worker. It is a very transparent system. Again, when you pay social security taxes you aren’t “saving for your retirement”, you are paying for current social security outflows. It’s how most government obligations work.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - rufus_foreman 5y ago
    >> In the future there will be people working and paying social security taxes and those taxes will be used to fund social security payments Is that a promise? You just said no promises. Here's how the retirement system is set up, as far as I can tell. Few years from now, I start spending young people's money. They go to work, I don't go to work, they work their asses off, I don't work my ass off, they pay taxes, I get a cut of that. For many years, hopefully. Then I die. Then...I give zero fucks. It's not my problem. If it all collapses after that, who gives a shit? Not me. As an old person, I like this system. I can't argue against it, it makes a lot of sense to me. Right on. I don't see how it makes sense to a 20 year old but I guess that's your job. Go and convince them, we're counting on you.
    - rsj_hn 5y ago
      > As an old person, I like this system. I can't argue against it, it makes a lot of sense to me. Right on. It makes sense to anyone of any age because the alternative is to dig a hole, dump food into the hole, pay people to stand around and guard the hole, and then, 40 years later, the 60 year old will dig up what their 20 year old saved and eat it. For each individual, there is am illusion that you can "save" wealth which you consume in your old age. But for society as a whole, it is only possible to transfer wealth from one generation to the next. Except when the individual is "saving" he is buying from someone else who sold, and when the individual sells his assets to consume, he is selling to someone younger. If you close your eyes and don't think about the other person on the side of the trade, you can pretend that you, as an individual, have stored wealth somewhere. But for the society as a whole, it is always transfers that are taking place, so neither the 20 year old nor the 40 year has any choice -- this is the only game in town. The only question is whether these transfers be centralized or distributed, or whether they be administered by governments or private entities. But neither the shift from centralized transfers to distributed transfers nor the shift from government to private is going to make this system any less dependent on promises and transfers. It's promises and transfers simply due the lack of an efficient consumption storage technology.

by ivalm 5y ago

rufus_foreman 5y ago

"there is no promise of current money paying for future obligations and there are no broken promises" Tell them, not me. I get my money, the 20 somethings lose their money, I spend their money. I'm 100% OK with that. And it's still a Ponzi scheme. As long as we are all on the same page as to what the kids are funding here. You get 0 and no broken promises, OK kids?

ivalm 5y ago
But we don’t get 0? In the future there will be people working and paying social security taxes and those taxes will be used to fund social security payments. If the percentage of retirees is too large then that will lead to increase in retirement age until the percentage of retirees is balanced by the number of workers. With productivity gains due to automation hopefully we can increase number of retirees per worker. It is a very transparent system. Again, when you pay social security taxes you aren’t “saving for your retirement”, you are paying for current social security outflows. It’s how most government obligations work.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- rufus_foreman 5y ago
  >> In the future there will be people working and paying social security taxes and those taxes will be used to fund social security payments Is that a promise? You just said no promises. Here's how the retirement system is set up, as far as I can tell. Few years from now, I start spending young people's money. They go to work, I don't go to work, they work their asses off, I don't work my ass off, they pay taxes, I get a cut of that. For many years, hopefully. Then I die. Then...I give zero fucks. It's not my problem. If it all collapses after that, who gives a shit? Not me. As an old person, I like this system. I can't argue against it, it makes a lot of sense to me. Right on. I don't see how it makes sense to a 20 year old but I guess that's your job. Go and convince them, we're counting on you.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    > As an old person, I like this system. I can't argue against it, it makes a lot of sense to me. Right on. It makes sense to anyone of any age because the alternative is to dig a hole, dump food into the hole, pay people to stand around and guard the hole, and then, 40 years later, the 60 year old will dig up what their 20 year old saved and eat it. For each individual, there is am illusion that you can "save" wealth which you consume in your old age. But for society as a whole, it is only possible to transfer wealth from one generation to the next. Except when the individual is "saving" he is buying from someone else who sold, and when the individual sells his assets to consume, he is selling to someone younger. If you close your eyes and don't think about the other person on the side of the trade, you can pretend that you, as an individual, have stored wealth somewhere. But for the society as a whole, it is always transfers that are taking place, so neither the 20 year old nor the 40 year has any choice -- this is the only game in town. The only question is whether these transfers be centralized or distributed, or whether they be administered by governments or private entities. But neither the shift from centralized transfers to distributed transfers nor the shift from government to private is going to make this system any less dependent on promises and transfers. It's promises and transfers simply due the lack of an efficient consumption storage technology.