Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Ponzi part is new money has to keep coming in to pay out to others.
No such thing .. a Ponzi scheme is just what it is and ss does not meet that definition . Just because insurance uses future money to meet obligations does not make insurance , annuities or pensions a Ponzi scheme
From my perspective, the big laugh is anyone thinking that there is actually a Social Security Trust Fund. That money has already been spent. It’s politically impossible to cut benefits so taxes are going up eventually to pay for it. The program is 75% funded so it’s not way off like many other government programs. The payout is massively progressive so it makes no sense to privatize it. The bottom 50% would starve.
If the US starts defaulting on its bonds, we will all have much bigger problems than SS. Your money would become worthless.
The Ponzi part is new money has to keep coming in to pay out to others.
Ponzi Scheme:
-has to return paid in capital
-spends the resources as well as pays out returns, thus depleting it's own revenue stream. (kind of a key point eh)
-has no authority to force participation
-can't change the size of it's own revenue streams nor it's obligations
Here, let's play a shortened version of 20 questions....
Does it have wheels? Yes.
Does it have a seat? Yes.
Can you spot it on radar? No.
Is it a tricycle? No, it's a stealth bomber.
If the US starts defaulting on its bonds, we will all have much bigger problems than SS. Your money would become worthless.
That's not what I meant. What's going to happen as the cash flow with Social Security turns negative is that the Federal government will simply borrow the difference. Right now, the 'trust fund' has a $2.89 trillion dollar balance. Between now and 2034, we're going to pay out $2.89 trillion more in benefits than we take in. Unless we raise taxes, that $2.89 trillion is going to be borrowed from some other source. The national debt today is $21 trillion. The GDP is $19 trillion. At some point, the interest payments on all that debt choke the Federal budget. Rather than default, the government inflates it away. Recall what hyperinflation did to retirees in the 1970s and early 1980s. Social Security is indexed to inflation but most other things aren't.
No such thing .. a Ponzi scheme is just what it is and ss does not meet that definition . Just because insurance uses future money to meet obligations does not make insurance , annuities or pensions a Ponzi scheme
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
Ponzi Scheme:
-has to return paid in capital
-spends the resources as well as pays out returns, thus depleting it's own revenue stream. (kind of a key point eh)
-has no authority to force participation
-can't change the size of it's own revenue streams nor it's obligations
Actually, there is only one Element of Proof necessary to prove a Ponzi-scheme.
A prosecutor need only demonstrate that the scheme requires new entrants to maintain viability, because the underlying scheme is defective.
The majority of crimes require more than one Element of Proof, but Ponzi-schemes do not.
Burglary:
1) unlawful entry
2) into a dwelling place
3) with intent to commit a felony
4) during hours of darkness
Prosecutors rely on US Naval Observatory data to determine the exact time of darkness at the exact coordinates of the dwelling place.
If it's not dark, it's not a burglary, it's a larceny. A warehouse is not a dwelling place, so it's a larceny, not a burglary.
Ponzi-schemes have similar characteristics, but the characteristics are not Elements of Proof. For example, Ponzi-schemes often offer high returns on investment, but that is not an Element of Proof, and people have been convicted for operating a Ponzi-scheme when they offered absolutely nothing on return, because the only Element of Proof is that the scheme requires new entrants to be viable.
Technically, Social Security is a Ponzi-scheme, because the underlying financial scheme cannot operate without new entrants.
Without new entrants, Social Security would collapse on its face.
There are definitions of Ponzi scheme all over and none reflect your version .i would need to see an actual ruling on that to accept it. It makes no sense since all annuities ,pensions and insurance require new money to pay out on a continual basis .
So I can’t accept that without proof. According to the legal definitition it requires a promise of a high rate of return from investment .
Ponzi Scheme:
-has to return paid in capital
-spends the resources as well as pays out returns, thus depleting it's own revenue stream. (kind of a key point eh)
-has no authority to force participation
-can't change the size of it's own revenue streams nor it's obligations
Here, let's play a shortened version of 20 questions....
Does it have wheels? Yes.
Does it have a seat? Yes.
Can you spot it on radar? No.
Is it a tricycle? No, it's a stealth bomber.
BUT THEY'RE THE SAME THING!!!!!
It does not have to return paid in capital. That has never been part of the plan, much less guaranteed.
It does not pay out returns; that's an oversimplified misunderstanding.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
