So yeah. That's a thing. And I guarantee there will be no program to let those of us who paid into it and never got to use get all that money we invested back.
Trump's Payroll Tax Cut Will Kill Social Security by 2023
- Thread starter Buyetyen
- Start date
Recommended Videos
So yeah. That's a thing. And I guarantee there will be no program to let those of us who paid into it and never got to use get all that money we invested back.
Yes, I'm aware that's the conservative meme, but it's bullshit. If you have something to discuss, please say it. If all you have are right wing talking points and slogans, please do not waste my time.
It's a meme, it's also reality. You didn't "invest" into social security, it's not something you can use to pick stocks and sell whenever. It's a ponzi scheme.
That's not what a ponzi scheme is, bro.
You know, I often wondered what Europeans must feel like when Americans start pretending to know what life is like in European countries. Now that the shoe's on the other foot, I understand. It's really boorish and arrogant.
Or from where ever you are. You said you're not an American. You don't live here. So don't shoot your mouth off about shit you don't understand.
You’re sort of right. It’s meant to be saving money for your retirement etc. in reality, the government spends your money on paying OTHER people who are currently retired etc. That’s not how it’s supposed to work at all. If anyone in the US government was fiscally responsible, your money would be set aside for later
It’s not technically a pozni scheme but, as with most situation involving the US, is poorly run and fiscally irresponsible
Well the core problem is that Social Security was pillaged years ago so any temporary hold on payroll taxes can permanently destroy it over a couple years. We probably do need to rework it into something else that’s just universal support for retirees and just increase taxes rather than having a fake retirement fund for every American.
- Feb 7, 2011
- 8,780
- 3,357
- 118
- Country
- 'Merica
- Gender
- 3 children in a trench coat
Considering I expect that social security will be dead before my generation gets to use it, FUCK IT, let it die faster. The baby boomers got us into this mess, they can finally be the ones over a barrel for a change.
At least if it's dead by 2023 I won't have to pay into it anymore knowing that I'll never reap the benefits.
At least if it's dead by 2023 I won't have to pay into it anymore knowing that I'll never reap the benefits.
No, it isn't.
It can vary from place to place, but the US system is (or was) impressively un-Ponzi-like, in the sense the money went into a ringfenced fund that would duly pay out. It later ran into choppier waters because the government altered the conditions to rip some money out of it for other functions which damaged its ability to self-fund.
Social security (well, the old age pension) in most places to some degree depends on taxing younger generations to pay for the elderly. However, the problem with a Ponzi scheme is that the returns and profits from earlier investors are paid for by the investments of the new, and necessarily the scheme runs out of money when there aren't enough new investors. However, this is not true of pensions for two reasons. Firstly, pensions are far less than the sum income of workers, such that even with population decline pensions are still far lower than general tax intake. Secondly, because people being born means that there are inherently new workers to pay for ongoing government debt. At the point there aren't enough workers alive to do so, clearly there has been a crisis of such magnitude that pension payments are the least of society's worries.
The other way of looking at it is that pension commitments are really just a form of government debt. Saying social security is a Ponzi scheme is thus basically just saying government debt is a Ponzi scheme, and this statement fails the most cursory of scratch tests.
Government debt is a Ponzi scheme, Modern economics is essentially hand-waving your way to stonk stock market (what's happening right now with the stocks in the US for example). They're printing Trillions of dollars and buying their own debt with that cash. Absolutely degenerate. Hayeck would cry if he knew what the fed did. Same goes with the EU bank, essentially buying their own credit. You know smaller countries go into bankruptcy doing exactly that (looking at Lebanon, and soon Turkey) but massive "too-big-to-fail" banks get a pass because there's no alternative.
If you base your scheme on the fact that there will always be growth (economic and population-wise), then it's a scheme, not an investment plan. Newer generations are smaller than previous ones, yet governments hadn't changed how the system works because they wouldn't want to anger older people (They vote more, have more property, and are politically savvy).
Conceptually, sure, but the pillaging did make it very ponzi-esque. Privatization of SS rather than developing a more robust system is the typical “solution” to those Ponzi scheme accusations, so your reaction is understandable.
By that argument, all debt is a Ponzi scheme.
A company borrows money to invest and expand operations with no guarantee of a profit. It it fails it takes a loss or even goes bust. So do members of the public: they borrow in the expectation future earnings will allow them to pay it off, but if they lose their income, they won't and they'll be forced to sell assets or declare bankruptcy. So what makes a government any different? Why is that Ponzi scheme, but all other borrowing not?
Sure, the government just prints money, and it can print money to pay off its own debt. But it's not necessarily a problem. The UK economy is ~£2.2 trillion a year, and its total asset wealth well over £10 trillion. If the Bank of England prints an extra £100 billion a year to pay off government debt, £100 billion seems huge but is actually tiny: less than one twentieth of the economy. If we include stuff like foreign holdings of pounds and so on, it's even more trivial. The pound will devalue slightly, but there's plenty of flexibility there.
I'm not particularly worried about what Hayek would think. Anything he wrote is decades out of date, and he had a narrow view of economics in the first place.
I'd be very careful of that sort of talk, because it's misrepresenting government finances, and doing so in a way that's more advantageous to your political opponents than it is to you.
You don't even need a reserve anymore, it's a joke.
Reserve Requirements
The Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Washington DC.
www.federalreserve.gov
Printing money isn't the only think that causes an increase to your living expenses. UK will be hit with many businesses shutting down, thus making services and products more expensive or unavailable. The tariffs on UK goods will cause the UK to retaliate, which will make EU products even more expensive. UK is on its way to be an American colonial possession. All of the cash in the city of London won't help the UK itself, especially since it doesn't control its own central bank just as the US.
Oh no better not let him have his own opinion different to you! You must watch out for those political opponents! Can't have an actual conversation here...
Right. But there's a rationale for that. The issue is how good or bad it is.
It's implemented because covid-19 caused a dramatic loss of economic activity that was going to be for a protracted period of time. The main aim is to give businesses money to keep them going, by analogy like hibernation, or mothballing. The reason for this is that when covid-19 is over, the economy will recover much faster if businesses still exist than if they have died, because in the latter case there will be all sorts of delays if lots of new businesses need to be created.
The British people voted, the British people are getting. And if as is likely they turn out to regret their choice, they have no-one to blame but themselves.
The UK will almost certainly not end up an American colonial possession simply because the maths don't stack up. Absent some form of disaster, the closeness of the EU for both trade and geopolitical concerns will always exceed that of the US by a substantial margin, and the UK will return to the arms of Europe in some way, irrespective of this most recent post-imperial convulsion.
LOL. Whatever, dude.
As long as the same leadership remains in the EU, they will punish the UK and make it SQUIRM, only to show its suffering to those thinking of leaving the EU like Italy. RIP UK. Prepare for firebombs courtesy of the new IRA.
Covid-meme will either die down after the elections in the US or stay around for a couple of years (another year, then) like SARS. The pump is terrible, the shut-down is terrible, this whole situation is a nightmare akin to living under the CCP. I wouldn't be surprised if digital wallets are around the fucking corner, coupled with a credit system.