Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Rick Perry Says Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme



Michael Tanner of NRO says Yes, It Is a Ponzi Scheme and I agree with him.

Social Security is a tyrannical, coercive ponzi scheme versus the voluntary one used by the original ponzi schemer himself, Charles Ponzi, who duped investors out of their money, absconded with the money by using the later investors' money to pay the later investors instead of using the money to make investments as he claimed he was doing.




Here is Michael Tanner's explanation of how Social Security is a ponzi scheme:

Social Security, on the other hand, forces people to invest in it through a mandatory payroll tax. A small portion of that money is used to buy special-issue Treasury bonds that the government will eventually have to repay, but the vast majority of the money you pay in Social Security taxes is not invested in anything. Instead, the money you pay into the system is used to pay benefits to those “early investors” who are retired today. When you retire, you will have to rely on the next generation of workers behind you to pay the taxes that will finance your benefits.
As with Ponzi’s scheme, this turns out to be a very good deal for those who got in early. The very first Social Security recipient, Ida Mae Fuller of Vermont, paid just $44 in Social Security taxes, but the long-lived Mrs. Fuller collected $20,993 in benefits. Such high returns were possible because there were many workers paying into the system and only a few retirees taking benefits out of it. In 1950, for instance, there were 16 workers supporting every retiree. Today, there are just over three. By around 2030, we will be down to just two.


As with Ponzi’s scheme, when the number of new contributors dries up, it will become impossible to continue to pay the promised benefits. Those early windfall returns are long gone. When today’s young workers retire, they will receive returns far below what private investments could provide. Many will be lucky to break even.


Eventually the pyramid crumbles.


Of course, Social Security and Ponzi schemes are not perfectly analogous. Ponzi, after all, had to rely on what people were willing to voluntarily invest with him. Once he couldn’t convince enough new investors to join his scheme, it collapsed. Social Security, on the other hand, can rely on the power of the government to tax. As the shrinking number of workers paying into the system makes it harder to continue to sustain benefits, the government can just force young people to pay even more into the system.


In fact, Social Security taxes have been raised some 40 times since the program began. The initial Social Security tax was 2 percent (split between the employer and employee), capped at $3,000 of earnings. That made for a maximum tax of $60. Today, the tax is 12.4 percent, capped at $106,800, for a maximum tax of $13,234. Even adjusting for inflation, that represents more than an 800 percent increase.


In addition, at least until the final collapse of his scheme, Ponzi was more or less obligated to pay his early investors what he promised them. With Social Security, on the other hand, Congress is always able to change or cut those benefits in order to keep the scheme going.


Social Security is facing more than $20 trillion in unfunded future liabilities. Raising taxes and cutting benefits enough to keep the program limping along will obviously mean an ever-worsening deal for younger workers. They will be forced to pay more and get less.


Rick Perry got this one right.

4 comments:

Leticia said...

Okay, I will be honest and say I don't like Rick Perry, but I think he is onto something here.

I am not completely against SS for those who absolutely need it, but so many do not and are milking the government.

It is time for an overhaul.

Teresa said...

Leticia,

I have mixed feelings on Perry. He excites me on some issues but disappoints me on others. I am just wondering what are a couple reasons that you don't like Rick Perry?

I actually like Paul Ryan's plan for SS.

MK said...

It'll be a hard pill to swallow, but never depend on this money. No matter what the politician of the week tells you, you cannot count on them to deliver. The unfortunate reality is that this is the way the system is designed.

The ass promising you bread and circuses in 10 years time will be long gone when it's time to deliver. Even if they are well meaning and there is good research to back up their scheme, things change over time so you must not trust them.

robot said...

Ponzi scheme is correct. It has been so ever since they put the money into the General Fund.

Keep looking into Perry. He's a strong candidate with a good chance to win it but be wary. No candidate is perfect. You might want to look at a couple of posts on his Muslim ties over at Zilla's place.

Hope you're doing well Teresa!