> Social security is more or less an unsustainable Ponzi scheme.
Do you think there's a possible solution os suite of solutions to address the real structural feature (intergenerational transfer dependent on demographics)?
That's a problem for sure but that doesn't support the OP's Ponzi claim - reducing benefits by ~20% is just a needed adjustment to make the numbers work in light of demographic change, not some plot.
That link doesn't fo a good job refuting the Ponzi scheme argument though. It just says it's not, without giving any solid arguments why it's not. In fact, I'd say it does the opposite.
Now I live in Norway, we have the same Ponzi scheme pensions here for public workers. Current workers pays for current pensioners.
If it was not a Ponzi scheme then it should be possible to stop the pension tax on current workers, while fulfilling all the pension obligations with the remainder of the funds. So no topping up from gov't either.
At last in Norway this was very much not true before we started our oil fund, and indeed one of the primary purposes of that fund was to secure future pensions.
I work in private sector and there it is very much not a Ponzi scheme. My employer pays a sum each month to a special pension account in the bank. I can see how much I have, and when I retire that's all I get from it.
There's a gov't base pension everyone gets in addition, that's a different story.
"oh no, we gotta nationalize it!"
Social security is more or less an unsustainable Ponzi scheme.
> Social security is more or less an unsustainable Ponzi scheme.
Do you think there's a possible solution os suite of solutions to address the real structural feature (intergenerational transfer dependent on demographics)?
Or do you think it is unsalvageable?
Easily verifiable disinfo - why are you helping the gits that spread this nonsense?
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-social-security-disin...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta...
That's a problem for sure but that doesn't support the OP's Ponzi claim - reducing benefits by ~20% is just a needed adjustment to make the numbers work in light of demographic change, not some plot.
That link doesn't fo a good job refuting the Ponzi scheme argument though. It just says it's not, without giving any solid arguments why it's not. In fact, I'd say it does the opposite.
Now I live in Norway, we have the same Ponzi scheme pensions here for public workers. Current workers pays for current pensioners.
If it was not a Ponzi scheme then it should be possible to stop the pension tax on current workers, while fulfilling all the pension obligations with the remainder of the funds. So no topping up from gov't either.
At last in Norway this was very much not true before we started our oil fund, and indeed one of the primary purposes of that fund was to secure future pensions.
I work in private sector and there it is very much not a Ponzi scheme. My employer pays a sum each month to a special pension account in the bank. I can see how much I have, and when I retire that's all I get from it.
There's a gov't base pension everyone gets in addition, that's a different story.