Proposition 3: Even a mandatory Ponzi scheme such as Social Security can fail if it cannot rustle up enough new entrants.
Did anyone suggest that Bernie Madoff be allowed to “fix” his scheme?
“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?”
As soon as you “means test it” then just call it what it is, welfare for poor seniors. Because that’s the truth of the matter.
“Even a mandatory Ponzi scheme such as Social Security can fail if it cannot rustle up enough new entrants.”
AND if money is paid out indiscriminately to people demonstrating NO affiliation with the ‘scheme’
As long as SS (or ANYTHING like it) is administered by people who are held to NO accountability, it is by definition fraudulent and illicit. Period.
A Ponzi scheme is a least voluntary.
Please stop defaming the good name of Charles Ponzi. Calling SS a Ponzi scheme is to attribute a scheme that Ponzi could never have conceived. Charles Ponzi could never compel investors, continue to pay early investors high returns, wrap up the scheme in fraudulent yet legal accounting, make the scheme progressive, and use the scheme for decades to buy votes. In short, Ponzi could never have conceived of financially unstable yet politically unstoppable scheme.
Ponzi has been somewhat unfairly targeted as the inventor of unsustainable investment schemes. Many others came before Ponzi. Ponzi actually had an investment idea (arbitrage of postal coupons) but he became overwhelmed with investments. Ponzi invested much of the money that he received in banks and other businesses but the investments were not capable of paying the promised returns. To his credit, Ponzi never ran when the heat was turned on his scheme. He faced the consequences and was convicted. Many others would have fled. Of course, Ponzi committed a crime but he does not deserve the infamy that he has received.
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?