4 ms·

The boomers definitely weren’t the first getting in, the original pensions were paid to their own parents It’s not really a Ponzi scheme, it is completely poss

The boomers definitely weren’t the first getting in, the original pensions were paid to their own parents It’s not really a Ponzi scheme, it is completely possible for the system to be balanced, it’s just very very hard to get people to vote for you if you say they’ll have less tomorrow

tossandthrow 1y ago
> It’s not really a Ponzi scheme, it is completely possible for the system to be balanced, it’s just very very hard to get people to vote for you if you say they’ll have less tomorrow This is exactly what happens in Denmark - a balancing of the pension system. Also,rgis has been planned since 2006 - so it is nothing new.
- namdnay 1y ago
  A real balancing would entail cutting pensions for existing pensioners. Which is electoral suicide. So what you always end up doing is shafting future pensioners, either by pushing back the retirement age, or by doing nothing and waiting for it to explode
  - tossandthrow 1y ago
    I reckon the presumption is that current pensioners don't live as long as future pensioners. Hence only doing this for future pensioners will give equal time as reitred. (at least, this is the core reasoning)
    - lazyasciiart 1y ago
      Also, that people who have twenty years to plan for their retirement to happen under these conditions will not be as screwed as someone told that their plans for next week are off.
      - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
        But those people retiring from 2040 are still getting screwed by a policy. How is more time to prepare gonna help? Are you gonna magic some more money out of thin air by then?
        lazyasciiart 1y ago
        You don’t need more money to continue working.
  - StackRanker3000 1y ago
    Why is that way of balancing this more real than the others?
WinstonSmith84 1y ago
maybe you don't like it to be called a Ponzi scheme, but the reality is that it is one. Definition of a Ponzi scheme: A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investor. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk. But in many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters do not invest the money. Instead, they use it to pay those who invested earlier and may keep some for themselves. https://www.investor.gov/protect-your-investments/fraud/types-fraud/ponzi-scheme https://www.investor.gov/protect-your-investments/fraud/type... That's exactly how pensions work in Europe. Replace "Ponzi scheme organizers" by "legally elected governments" and here you have it - you have a whole continent of people believing that their pension is a given. Not everybody may like it, but that's the hard truth. In the US, people contribute towards a 401K, and choose how to invest, but typically pick up just the S&P 500 - anyway and at least that money is somehow what they have saved for themselves. But I agree with your statement "it is completely possible for the system to be balanced" - yes a Ponzi scheme can be absolutely balanced, you just need enough participants ...
- simianwords 1y ago
  i disagree. this is not at all a ponzi scheme. as you have pointed out the ponzi scheme has no value outside of the system and relies on deception to convince people to buy in to it. crucially the investment scheme provides no "value". pensions on the other hand don't have the quality of deception and the value is straightforward - it redistributes wealth from the younger population to the older ones. this reduces the need for individuals to plan their retirements as the state takes care of it. as pointed by another post, you don't need a pyramid here, just somewhat equal proportions of population on each side. wouldn't you characterise any tax scheme as a ponzi scheme? unemployment benefits, healthcare etc? what makes them different from pensions? but i do agree that one should not think of pensions as a given. its worth pointing out that there are two types of pensions - defined benefits and defined contributions.
  - WinstonSmith84 1y ago
    > wouldn't you characterise any tax scheme as a ponzi scheme? No, not exactly, that's different. > unemployment benefits, healthcare etc? what makes them different from pensions? That's certainly contributions I don't like either, because of how this system is abused. But to be fair, unemployment benefits or healthcare aren't a pyramid scheme, because you aren't paying for the previous "investors" - you might get back what you contributed (with a lots of caveats). In the case of the pension system, you clearly pay the previous "investors".

tossandthrow 1y ago

> It’s not really a Ponzi scheme, it is completely possible for the system to be balanced, it’s just very very hard to get people to vote for you if you say they’ll have less tomorrow This is exactly what happens in Denmark - a balancing of the pension system. Also,rgis has been planned since 2006 - so it is nothing new.

namdnay 1y ago
A real balancing would entail cutting pensions for existing pensioners. Which is electoral suicide. So what you always end up doing is shafting future pensioners, either by pushing back the retirement age, or by doing nothing and waiting for it to explode
- tossandthrow 1y ago
  I reckon the presumption is that current pensioners don't live as long as future pensioners. Hence only doing this for future pensioners will give equal time as reitred. (at least, this is the core reasoning)
  - lazyasciiart 1y ago
    Also, that people who have twenty years to plan for their retirement to happen under these conditions will not be as screwed as someone told that their plans for next week are off.
    - FirmwareBurner 1y ago
      But those people retiring from 2040 are still getting screwed by a policy. How is more time to prepare gonna help? Are you gonna magic some more money out of thin air by then?
      - lazyasciiart 1y ago
        You don’t need more money to continue working.
- StackRanker3000 1y ago
  Why is that way of balancing this more real than the others?

WinstonSmith84 1y ago

maybe you don't like it to be called a Ponzi scheme, but the reality is that it is one. Definition of a Ponzi scheme: A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investor. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk. But in many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters do not invest the money. Instead, they use it to pay those who invested earlier and may keep some for themselves. https://www.investor.gov/protect-your-investments/fraud/types-fraud/ponzi-scheme https://www.investor.gov/protect-your-investments/fraud/type... That's exactly how pensions work in Europe. Replace "Ponzi scheme organizers" by "legally elected governments" and here you have it - you have a whole continent of people believing that their pension is a given. Not everybody may like it, but that's the hard truth. In the US, people contribute towards a 401K, and choose how to invest, but typically pick up just the S&P 500 - anyway and at least that money is somehow what they have saved for themselves. But I agree with your statement "it is completely possible for the system to be balanced" - yes a Ponzi scheme can be absolutely balanced, you just need enough participants ...

simianwords 1y ago
i disagree. this is not at all a ponzi scheme. as you have pointed out the ponzi scheme has no value outside of the system and relies on deception to convince people to buy in to it. crucially the investment scheme provides no "value". pensions on the other hand don't have the quality of deception and the value is straightforward - it redistributes wealth from the younger population to the older ones. this reduces the need for individuals to plan their retirements as the state takes care of it. as pointed by another post, you don't need a pyramid here, just somewhat equal proportions of population on each side. wouldn't you characterise any tax scheme as a ponzi scheme? unemployment benefits, healthcare etc? what makes them different from pensions? but i do agree that one should not think of pensions as a given. its worth pointing out that there are two types of pensions - defined benefits and defined contributions.
- WinstonSmith84 1y ago
  > wouldn't you characterise any tax scheme as a ponzi scheme? No, not exactly, that's different. > unemployment benefits, healthcare etc? what makes them different from pensions? That's certainly contributions I don't like either, because of how this system is abused. But to be fair, unemployment benefits or healthcare aren't a pyramid scheme, because you aren't paying for the previous "investors" - you might get back what you contributed (with a lots of caveats). In the case of the pension system, you clearly pay the previous "investors".