4 ms·
Not necessarily in this case. You have those who pay in, but die before they fully collect. Then the collectors do die off, they aren’t expected to get returns
by bena 1y ago
Not necessarily in this case. You have those who pay in, but die before they fully collect. Then the collectors do die off, they aren’t expected to get returns in perpetuity or crazy large returns. Then you have a constant supply of new payees into the system.
Only a devastating collapse of the population would cause it to go tits up
- rickydroll 1y agoAnd in your comment lies a possible solution. Support people into their mid-70s, and then the only medical care they get is palliative, so they don't suffer from whatever takes them out. Half of their estate is allocated to the social welfare fund. Another solution is to increase the sources of funding. For example, in the United States, your Social Security contributions are capped once your income exceeds approximately $160,000. Eliminate that cap, and include income from other sources (i.e., taxes on estates, capital gains, and buy-borrow-die) in the Social Security tax calculation.
- nradov 1y agoAny "solution" will have to work within the realm of political possibility. Elderly people also get to vote and I doubt they will support cutting off their own access to healthcare, or drastic increases in estate taxes.
- bena 1y agoNo doubt we can probably do things better, my main thrust was to show how if you can force participation, you can kind of get away with it.