Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Krauthhammer on The Great Social Security Debate : Of course it's a Ponzi Scheme. So What?
National Review ^ | 09/16/2011 | Charles Krauthhammer

Posted on 09/16/2011 7:23:53 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Proposition 1: In a Ponzi scheme, the people who invest early get their money out with dividends. But these dividends don’t come from any profitable or productive activity — they consist entirely of money paid in by later participants.

This cannot go on forever because at some point there just aren’t enough new investors to support the earlier entrants. Word gets around that there are no profits, just money transferred from new to old. The merry-go-round stops, the scheme collapses, and the remaining investors lose everything.

Now, Social Security is a pay-as-you-go program. A current beneficiary isn’t receiving the money she paid in years ago. That money is gone. It went to her parents’ Social Security check. The money in her check is coming from her son’s FICA tax today — i.e., her “investment” was paid out years ago to earlier entrants in the system and her current benefits are coming from the “investment” of the new entrants into the system. Pay-as-you-go is the definition of a Ponzi scheme.

So what’s the difference? Ponzi schemes are illegal, suggested one of my colleagues on Inside Washington.

But this is perfectly irrelevant. Imagine that Charles Ponzi had lived not in Boston but in the lesser parts of Papua New Guinea where the securities and fraud laws were, shall we say, less developed. He runs his same scheme among the locals — give me (“invest”) one goat today, I’ll give (“return”) you two after six full moons — but escapes any legal sanction. Is his legal enterprise any less a Ponzi scheme? Of course not.

So what is the difference?

Proposition 2: The crucial distinction between a Ponzi scheme and Social Security is that Social Security is mandatory.

That’s why Ponzi schemes always collapse and Social Security has not. When it’s mandatory, you’ve ensured an endless supply of new participants. Indeed, if Charles Ponzi had had the benefit of the law forcing people into his scheme, he’d still be going strong — and a perfect candidate for commissioner of the Social Security Administration.

But there’s a catch. Compulsion allows sustainability; it does not guarantee it. Hence . . .

Proposition 3: Even a mandatory Ponzi scheme like Social Security can fail if it cannot rustle up enough new entrants.

You can force young people into Social Security, but if there just aren’t enough young people in existence to support current beneficiaries, the system will collapse anyway.

When Social Security began making monthly distributions in 1940, there were 160 workers for every senior receiving benefits. In 1950, there were 16.5; today, three; in 20 years, there will be but two.

Now, the average senior receives in Social Security about a third of what the average worker makes. Applying that ratio retroactively, this means that in 1940, the average worker had to pay only 0.2 percent of his salary to sustain the older folks of his time; in 1950, 2 percent; today, 11 percent; in 20 years, 17 percent. This is a staggering sum, considering that it is apart from all the other taxes he pays to sustain other functions of government, such as Medicare, whose costs are exploding.

The Treasury already steps in and borrows the money required to cover the gap between what workers pay into Social Security and what seniors take out. When young people were plentiful, Social Security produced a surplus. Starting now and for decades to come, it will add to the deficit, increasingly so as the population ages.

Demography is destiny. Which leads directly to Proposition 4: This is one Ponzi scheme that can be saved by adapting to the new demographics.

Three easy steps: Change the cost-of-living measure, means test for richer recipients, and, most important, raise the retirement age. The current retirement age is an absurd anachronism. Bismarck arbitrarily chose 70 when he created social insurance in 1889. Clever guy: Life expectancy at the time was under 50.

When Franklin Roosevelt created Social Security, choosing 65 as the eligibility age, life expectancy was 62. Today it is almost 80. FDR wanted to prevent the aged few from suffering destitution in their last remaining years. Social Security was not meant to provide two decades of greens fees for baby boomers.

Of course it’s a Ponzi scheme. So what? It’s also the most vital, humane, and fixable of all social programs. The question for the candidates is: Forget Ponzi — are you going to fix Social Security?

— Charles Krauthammer is a national syndicated columnist.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: obama; palin; perry; ponzischeme; socialsecurity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

1 posted on 09/16/2011 7:23:59 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Krauthammer pi$$es me off sometimes but when he’s on he’s DEAD ON!


2 posted on 09/16/2011 7:32:42 AM PDT by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Someone here educated me last week on life expectancy numbers. They are much higher now because the infant mortality rate is so much lower. If your life expectancy figures for today and a hundred years ago only inlude people who make it to, say, age 18, people really are not living all that much longer.

Heck, the bible says the life of a man is 70 years. Those that don’t die in childhood, that is.


3 posted on 09/16/2011 7:33:06 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“Of course it’s a Ponzi scheme. So what? It’s also the most vital, humane, and fixable of all social programs. The question for the candidates is: Forget Ponzi — are you going to fix Social Security?”

Excellent question, especially for those who have paid into it for 35 or forty years at gunpoint, not out of greed, which of course, is the point of the article. This is far worse than a Ponzi scheme.

The headline is enough to make you pretty angry. I first thought it meant he was saying so what, like it was no big deal. You can’t read his stuff lightly, can you? The mandatory component of this is what really should make people riot, with ZeroCare on the way. It compounds the Ponzi felony. We weren’t enticed by profits, we were robbed at gunpoint. Just as we will be with ZeroCare.


4 posted on 09/16/2011 7:37:25 AM PDT by jessduntno (Obama shanks. America tanks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

RE: If your life expectancy figures for today and a hundred years ago only inlude people who make it to, say, age 18, people really are not living all that much longer.

Krauthhammer assumes that people can continue to work till way pass 65 and THEIR COMPANIES WILL CONTINUE TO EMPLOY THEM.

Does he not udnerstand that there is RAMPANT AGEISM IN AMERICA where when a company wants to cut cost, the ones who get layed off first are those in their mid or late 50’s?

Trying looking for another job and competing with people in their 30’s after you get laid off and let’s see if you can do it....

A minority can, but on average, it will be extremely difficult.

Let’s say the age by which one can claim SS is now increased to 70... what if you get laid off at 65 and are trying to find a job? What company or business will even consider hiring you at that age?

In the meantime, you should have been eligible for SS but have to wait 5 more years to get it. Is that what Americans will have to look forward to from now on?


5 posted on 09/16/2011 7:40:59 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf
Someone here educated me last week on life expectancy numbers. They are much higher now because the infant mortality rate is so much lower.

Here's some more info: yes, infant mortality rates are part of the explanation; but the biggest contributor to longevity from the 1930s to the present has been antibiotics. Almost everyone used to die of infections like pneumonia. Now they survive those infections. It is a very direct correlation.

6 posted on 09/16/2011 7:42:18 AM PDT by Migraine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Migraine

How about war? Or are the numbers relatively low?


7 posted on 09/16/2011 7:43:55 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“In the meantime, you should have been eligible for SS but have to wait 5 more years to get it. Is that what Americans will have to look forward to from now on?”

I don’t think anyone is suggesting they raise the age tomorrow. They are talking some 15-20 years out, by many tables and another year for shorter terms. That would correct the problem, by offering those under 40 to opt into a VOLUNTARY combination of public/private savings account. The public part would support the ongoing cost, the private (naturally) would yield higher dividends to pay them out in the out years.


8 posted on 09/16/2011 7:50:27 AM PDT by jessduntno (Obama shanks. America tanks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Migraine

Your post made me think. I think a “valid” statistic would be one that answers this question: What is the life expectancy of those that make it to 60?

I’ve noticed that the older you are, the longer the actuarials say you will live. Nobody ever tried to get life insurance and the agent says, “Sorry. the actuarials say you died last week. I would not be surprised if a 100 year old man has a life expectancy to 106.

Come to think of it, comparing actuarial tables from 1940 and 2011 would give us a glimpse of what changes have really taken place.

Here’s one from 2003:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/47/Excerpt_from_CDC_2003_Table_1.pdf


9 posted on 09/16/2011 7:51:24 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: traderrob6

he is spot on, with this commentary. Good suggestions. I agree with means testing and raising the eligibility age from 65 to 68 or 70.


10 posted on 09/16/2011 7:52:38 AM PDT by Chuzzlewit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

You don’t ‘fix’ a Ponzi scheme. OK so it will just be a slightly better ponzi scheme?

We need a system of private accounts where each person has his own account invested in CD’s and bonds. We have tried to argue for this before. But I would NOT however do the whole stocks thing because 1) we have 401k’s for that and 2) Democrats will not be able to demonize CD’s, bonds and money markets.

Once that ‘risky stock’ argument goes away, how can they argue against a fully funded system that still makes more money than SS and can be passed down to your heirs?


11 posted on 09/16/2011 7:54:29 AM PDT by ari-freedom (Thank you, Bob!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno
Dr. K is, as usual, confused. Social Security isn't much more mandatory than the classic Ponzi scheme. The government can only “force” people to participate as long as people keep voting to be forced. When enough people realize it's a fraud, they can just elect a government that will release them from it, which is exactly what they will ultimately do. Social Security is an empty promise that will be broken — guaranteed.

There's no way to fix SS and it isn't humane at all. It is just a thin veil thrown over the confiscation of a large part of America's retirement savings. SS will have to be abolished (probably in several stages) along with the payroll tax and replaced with an honest welfare/income support program for the elderly financed out of the general fund. No government can keep a promise to care for everyone. It's civilizational suicide.

12 posted on 09/16/2011 7:55:41 AM PDT by fluffdaddy (Who died and made the Supreme Court God?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Migraine

“Here’s some more info: yes, infant mortality rates are part of the explanation; but the biggest contributor to longevity from the 1930s to the present has been antibiotics. Almost everyone used to die of infections like pneumonia. Now they survive those infections. It is a very direct correlation. “

Don’t tell Michele Bachmann. According to her, modern medicine is the spawn of SATAN!!!!


13 posted on 09/16/2011 7:56:36 AM PDT by ari-freedom (Thank you, Bob!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I’m reading a Michner book called Chesapeak. It starts with the life of an indian in the 1600’s and follows the inhabitants from there based, somewhat, on actual records.

We have it so easy now as to be downright laughable. If the only hardship is that they increase the age at which people can get ss, it is but a blip. I admit I’m using a semi-fiction book to illustrate this, but my belief is that we are about to go down so hard that in a few years people will yearn for the world in which we currently live and the addition of higher SS with NO hope of getting any back.

No, I’m not predicting Mad Max. More of a post WWII europe sort of thing, with elevated gamma rays maybe.


14 posted on 09/16/2011 7:58:13 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

SS is a Ponzi scheme insofar as most participants have the impression it’s a “money in -> money invested -> money out” plan, that somehow it’s their money they put in which they’re getting out (with paltry interest, of course).

SS isn’t a Ponzi scheme insofar as the “investment” form is long gone (if it ever existed; I’m still researching that), at it is nothing more than a straight “you pay money in today, someone gets money out tomorrow” redistributive tax, and anyone exerting any attempt to understand the program understands this.

The former amounts to felony fraud, the other amounts to normal taxation.
The difference is mere semantics. Which you choose depends only on whether you’re a member or target of the coming lynch mob.
Either way, we soon won’t have enough money coming in to pay money going out, and that point is a lot sooner than alleged because the so-called “trust fund” bonds in question are paid out of the general fund which is already spent twice over.


15 posted on 09/16/2011 8:00:55 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fluffdaddy

The government can also only force people to pay from taxable income. Those that have found alternate methods of income can affect the equation. Greece has this problem. There is a huge underground cash only economy that is never reported. The amount of tax dollars not collected is staggering. When taxes become punitive, people either stop producing or they figure out a way to produce just enough to survive without the government getting a cut.


16 posted on 09/16/2011 8:01:02 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: fluffdaddy

—No government can keep a promise to care for everyone. It’s civilizational suicide. —

Just ask Greece.


17 posted on 09/16/2011 8:02:59 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: fluffdaddy

—No government can keep a promise to care for everyone. It’s civilizational suicide. —

Just ask Greece.

Or any of the PIIGS.


18 posted on 09/16/2011 8:03:17 AM PDT by cuban leaf (Were doomed! Details at eleven.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Chuzzlewit

Just because people are living longer doesn’t mean they are able to work longer. You can’t pull people out of nursing homes and tell them to get a job just because they have a pulse.


19 posted on 09/16/2011 8:03:28 AM PDT by ari-freedom (Thank you, Bob!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom
Once that ‘risky stock’ argument goes away, how can they argue against a fully funded system that still makes more money than SS and can be passed down to your heirs?

The only federal involvement required in the program would be that deposits in such accounts are tax-free, as are withdrawals after the age of 65.

20 posted on 09/16/2011 8:08:43 AM PDT by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: fluffdaddy

“Dr. K is, as usual, confused. Social Security isn’t much more mandatory than the classic Ponzi scheme.”

You mean, except one is voluntary and the other is mandatory?

The key phrase in your contention is “as long as people keep voting to be forced.” The similarity to the Ponzi scheme is that the suckers don’t know their money is gone until it’s too late. And for many over 50, that is what has happened.

SS CAN be fixed for...by voluntary privatization, so that the suckers like me that have paid in for a long, long time don’t lose everything they put in and younger participants who have paid in something will get that something out. Some will volunteer to put some in (just as some overpay income taxes to get a rebate at the end of the year, even though the rate of return is dismal) even though they know it will NOT perform well. The fix, as you say, involves not promoting it as a “ promise to care for everyone.”


21 posted on 09/16/2011 8:09:21 AM PDT by jessduntno (Obama shanks. America tanks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

Under 40 can opt out.

Over 65 still collect.

50 - you get to keep paying, and never collect.

Got it. I vote no.


22 posted on 09/16/2011 8:13:05 AM PDT by patton (I am sure that I have done dumber things in my life, but at the moment, I am unable to recall them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno
The mandatory component of this is what really should make people riot...

If you can get your hands on an old copy of William F. Buckey's Up From Liberalism (1959), you'll get a surprise. Near the end of the book, after examining the issue, he concludes with the same proposition that you offered.

Only back then, there was no ZeroCare and entitlement crisis to gird people. Barry Goldwater tried that approach in 1964, and in so doing got burned.

23 posted on 09/16/2011 8:13:59 AM PDT by danielmryan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Krauthhammer assumes that people can continue to work till way pass 65 and THEIR COMPANIES WILL CONTINUE TO EMPLOY THEM.


So, because a company finds it unprofitable to employ some geezer, you want someone else to pay for a perfectly healthy person to sit at home?

Ever hear of SAVINGS?

Live modestly, save, and not be a ward of your fellow taxpayer for decades of able-bodied retirement?


24 posted on 09/16/2011 8:17:46 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Are you better off now than you were four trillion dollars ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

I don’t think anyone is suggesting they raise the age tomorrow.


I’m suggesting that aside from avoiding disruption to current and imminent retirees, the age should be floated annually to ensure ZERO BORROWING to pay SS benefits.

Delaying 15 years will simply kick the can (accumulate trillions in debt), and screw those who are paying in now, who have no hope of enjoying the same benefits of those they’re funding.


25 posted on 09/16/2011 8:20:49 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Are you better off now than you were four trillion dollars ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

What is the life expectancy of those that make it to 60?


Life expectancy is about 78 from birth, and 83 at age 65.


26 posted on 09/16/2011 8:23:07 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Are you better off now than you were four trillion dollars ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

As usual, Krauthammer defends sociopaths.

Social security is an intergenerational money transfer
that was screwed up by corrupt people for whom
there is neither accountability nor transparency.

It is NOT a Ponzi scheme but has been made one by
corrupt individuals and THEIR schemes.


27 posted on 09/16/2011 8:23:46 AM PDT by Diogenesis ("Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. " Pres. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom

You don’t ‘fix’ a Ponzi scheme. OK so it will just be a slightly better ponzi scheme?


Actually, if you can transition from an unsustainable scheme that is inevitably headed toward failure, and make it sustainable for all future generations (by floating the retirement age to guarantee annual break-even solvency) then you have fixed it. It’s still ugly socialism, but it is no longer a ponzi scheme.


28 posted on 09/16/2011 8:25:02 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Are you better off now than you were four trillion dollars ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: patton

“50 - you get to keep paying, and never collect.”

I don’t know where that was suggested, but no, 50 you get the option to privatize your account going forward. And you do collect what you have put in.


29 posted on 09/16/2011 8:27:28 AM PDT by jessduntno (Obama shanks. America tanks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Of course it’s a Ponzi scheme. So what? It’s also the most vital, humane, and fixable of all social programs.

Then why haven't they fixed it? Bush tried, and it got shot down. Thus far, it is has been a political poison arrow. I hope that Americans will wake up to the fact that Social Security simply cannot keep going the way it has been.

30 posted on 09/16/2011 8:30:11 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

RE: Ever hear of SAVINGS?

Yes, it’s called Social Security, money which was promised to people if they PAY INTO IT ( which they do, FORCIBLY ), and which they were promised when they paid in that they could get by age 62 ( and fully by 65 ).


31 posted on 09/16/2011 8:30:42 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

“I’m suggesting that aside from avoiding disruption to current and imminent retirees, the age should be floated annually to ensure ZERO BORROWING to pay SS benefits.”

That’s where privatization comes in.That becomes your choice and leaves room for higher profit (and loss, presumably, for risk takers and those that have private funds to bolster retirement) to be kept from being “raided.”


32 posted on 09/16/2011 8:31:13 AM PDT by jessduntno (Obama shanks. America tanks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom
Don’t tell Michele Bachmann. According to her, modern medicine is the spawn of SATAN!!!!

Can you cite the quote where she said any such thing?

33 posted on 09/16/2011 8:33:42 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Ever hear of SAVINGS?

Indeed. Unfortunately, older people have been forced to pay into this money they could have been saving.

34 posted on 09/16/2011 8:35:54 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

The present value of the money I have been forced to pay for SS is about 1.5 Million Dollars.

Write me a check right now, and I will opt out.


35 posted on 09/16/2011 8:44:25 AM PDT by patton (I am sure that I have done dumber things in my life, but at the moment, I am unable to recall them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Three easy steps: Change the cost-of-living measure, means test for richer recipients, and, most important, raise the retirement age. The current retirement age is an absurd anachronism.

Absolutely not. Means testing is just another phrase for "spread the wealth", AKA communism/socialism. We need to be moving away from that obviously destructive policy, not embracing it.

The solution is simple - end the program, reimburse everyone that has paid into it, and allow private, tax-free programs to replace it.

36 posted on 09/16/2011 8:56:39 AM PDT by meyer (We will not sit down and shut up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Bush had it right people should be able to keep 50% of their Social Security in an account that you can’t draw from until retired.At least you would have more than what the feds could give you.
The draw back is congress couldn’t dip it’s paw into it,must be why they will never pass such a law.


37 posted on 09/16/2011 9:00:03 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meyer

The solution is simple - end the program, reimburse everyone that has paid into it.


Reimburse with WHAT?


38 posted on 09/16/2011 9:04:04 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Are you better off now than you were four trillion dollars ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Vaduz

RE: The draw back is congress couldn’t dip it’s paw into it

Why can’t we vote people in who will pass a law stating that Congress CANNOT EVER touch any money in Social Security to pay for current expenses?

We keep talking about this so-called lock box for the longest time (without doing a darn thing about it).

It has now become a Saturday Night Live joke.

See here (starting from 9:20)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BAx6Ib81Y4


39 posted on 09/16/2011 9:06:41 AM PDT by SeekAndFind (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom

Just because people are living longer doesn’t mean they are able to work longer. You can’t pull people out of nursing homes and tell them to get a job just because they have a pulse.


Do you have any medical basis for your claim that most workers aren’t capable of working until, say, 70?

Your second sentence is desperate hyperbole.

PS: You’re allowed to SAVE your own money if you want to retire earlier than the taxpaying workers can afford to support you.


40 posted on 09/16/2011 9:19:40 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Are you better off now than you were four trillion dollars ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: cuban leaf

cuban leaf: Heck, the bible says the life of a man is 70 years. Those that don’t die in childhood, that is.

bm - nor in the womb!


41 posted on 09/16/2011 9:20:48 AM PDT by BrandtMichaels
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

SS CAN be fixed for...by voluntary privatization, so that the suckers like me that have paid in for a long, long time don’t lose everything they put in and younger participants who have paid in something will get that something out.


It sounds like you assume that there is some money in the pot that hasn’t been looted. unfortunately, it’s all gone, and all your taxes (and more) are needed to maintain current payouts.


42 posted on 09/16/2011 9:21:18 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Are you better off now than you were four trillion dollars ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
Reimburse with WHAT?

Money, gold, or blood. Their choice.

43 posted on 09/16/2011 9:21:56 AM PDT by meyer (We will not sit down and shut up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

That’s where privatization comes in.That becomes your choice and leaves room for higher profit (and loss, presumably, for risk takers and those that have private funds to bolster retirement) to be kept from being “raided.”


If every penny of my current SS tax is needed to find current retirees, what will they do when I get to keep half in my own account?


44 posted on 09/16/2011 9:23:33 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Are you better off now than you were four trillion dollars ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: patton

The present value of the money I have been forced to pay for SS is about 1.5 Million Dollars.

Write me a check right now, and I will opt out.


Sorry, but Congress ripped you (and me) off. The money isn’t there to pay you back. It’s gone.

Yet the old folks expect that we’ll keep sending them our earnings.


45 posted on 09/16/2011 9:25:38 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Are you better off now than you were four trillion dollars ago?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom
Just because people are living longer doesn’t mean they are able to work longer. You can’t pull people out of nursing homes and tell them to get a job just because they have a pulse.

of course not..I think the change would be for newborns and/or folks under 20 years old or thereabouts.

46 posted on 09/16/2011 9:29:07 AM PDT by Chuzzlewit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Social Security™ is WORSE than a Ponzi scheme because a when the truth comes out about a Ponzi scheme it ENDS! With Social Security™ your trapped in the lie with no escape under penalty of law.


47 posted on 09/16/2011 9:32:45 AM PDT by central_va ( I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Why can’t we vote people in who will pass a law.
Let the critters know it’s a one term deal unless they do the right thing,starting with the next election we dump the lifers in congress.


48 posted on 09/16/2011 9:34:47 AM PDT by Vaduz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba

If every penny of my current SS tax is needed to find current retirees, what will they do when I get to keep half in my own account?

___________________________________

I didn’t see anywhere ever, that every penny is needed today - general consensus is that it is still funded for several more years...but in any event, your money would still be used, but through a higher yield investment vehicle, allowing your money to produce more, not less. Where have you read that the funds are exhausted?

Everything I have read says there is another 20-25 years before it is broke.

Not true? According to who?


49 posted on 09/16/2011 9:41:12 AM PDT by jessduntno (Obama shanks. America tanks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

SS was running a surplus - more taxes collected than paid out - until ~2010.

Since then, every dime collected is paid out, and then some. The “Then some” comes out of the general fund.

You know, the general fund that borrows .42% of every dollar spent from the chinese.


50 posted on 09/16/2011 9:59:51 AM PDT by patton (I am sure that I have done dumber things in my life, but at the moment, I am unable to recall them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson