From Wikipedia:Bubba wrote: ↑Feb 13th, '23, 10:32There are many reasons beyond a shrinking labor pool. When SS was begun in the 1930s life expectancy was less than 65. Today it’s well into the 70s and longer. Back then there were 7 workers for each beneficiary. Today it’s far less. Survivor benefits were rightly expanded to include husbands by court decision. Other benefits have expanded as well. The SS tax has grown along with benefits but obviously not enough to keep the program solvent in the future based on actuarial tables. Ponzi scheme? No, but we need to do something sooner rather than later.easyrider16 wrote: ↑Feb 13th, '23, 06:23It's not a ponzi scheme. That's just something conservatives like to say because it makes a good sound bite. Social security works very similarly to many private insurance programs. One of the primary reasons the program is in danger now is the pool is too small to support the benefit due to population decline. (What population decline?)Mister Moose wrote: ↑Feb 10th, '23, 17:14So your idea to fix a partial Ponzi scheme is to make it a larger Ponzi scheme...easyrider16 wrote: ↑Feb 10th, '23, 12:12 Alternatively, we could start allowing more immigration so the population grows, but there are probably too many nativists around for that to be a viable solution.
What could go wrong?
The basic premise of a Ponzi scheme is "to rob Peter (The taxpayer)to pay Paul (The retiree). Initially, the operator pays high returns to attract investors and entice current investors to invest more money. When other investors begin to participate, a cascade effect begins. The schemer pays a "return" to initial investors from the investments of new participants, rather than from genuine profits.
Bubba, paying out more in benefits than you invested is a Ponzi scheme. Not balancing the actuarial needs of the system and deceiving the participants is a Ponzi scheme. Taking the principal and spending it is a Ponzi scheme. Because the intent is good and it is operated by the government instead of a thief, does not exempt the government from that label.