🔥 This is why I oppose making things public institutions.



  • No one is saving anything with Social Security. Period.

    How is it that putting aside $100-$200 per month, in exchange for a perpetuity when you retire, isn't a pension?

    You either don't understand Ponzi schemes or don't understand Social Security.

    I understand them both. And I understand that a Ponzi scheme is fraud, and an unfunded pension scheme is an actuarial error. There's a subtle difference. The latter is "just" a fuck up.



  • It's supposed to be reliant on economic growth, but the actuarial assumptions got fucked up by WW2.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Captain said:

    Now they're broke, and it's because they didn't save enough -- not because of Social Security.

    That's besides the point that Social Security is itself a Ponzi scheme.

    @Captain said:

    Social Security will be fine once the demographic and savings crises are over. Because it is the demographic crisis that is the problem.

    Yes, there are more people taking money out than are paying money in. It's at the Ponzi crisis point.

    @Captain said:

    YOU'RE STARTING TO GET IT. IT'S THE PEOPLE THAT IS THE PROBLEM, NOT WHICH BANK ACCOUNT THEY PUT THEIR MONEY IN.

    That has nothing to do with the Ponzi-ness of Social Security, though.

    @Captain said:

    PEOPLE WANT TO CONSUME. THEY WANT EVERYTHING NOW.

    Yeah, that's what Social Security has always done. The government spent all of the money it took in every single year.



  • @Captain said:

    How is it that putting aside $100-$200 per month, in exchange for a perpetuity when you retire, isn't a pension?

    Because a pension is backed with something of value.

    It's either backed by investments, or its backed by an "investment" in the company itself, by lieu of earnings.

    The government can't sell itself to pay off a pension.



  • Because a pension is backed with something of value.

    It's either backed by investments, or its backed by an "investment" in the company itself, by lieu of earnings.

    That's some bullshit definition you just made up.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Captain said:

    How is it that putting aside $100-$200 per month, in exchange for a perpetuity when you retire, isn't a pension?

    Ask Bernie Madoff.

    @Captain said:

    I understand them both. And I understand that a Ponzi scheme is fraud, and an unfunded pension scheme is an actuarial error. There's a subtle difference. The latter is "just" a fuck up.

    Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. No private entity could get away with it. It's only legal because the government is doing it. I'm not saying it is literally something that could be prosecuted like Madoff or whatever.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Captain said:

    It's supposed to be reliant on economic growth, but the actuarial assumptions got fucked up by WW2.

    It happens to the best Ponzi scheme eventually.



  • There is no unfunded pension plan that requires its employees to pay in a percentage of their income to pay off the current generation of pension payouts.

    The government doesn't earn profits, and it can't sell itself.


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Captain said:

    > Because a pension is backed with something of value.

    It's either backed by investments, or its backed by an "investment" in the company itself, by lieu of earnings.

    That's some bullshit definition you just made up.

    Seems pretty close to what google just told me:

    pen·sion1
    ˈpenSHən/
    noun
    1.
    a regular payment made during a person's retirement from an investment fund to which that person or their employer has contributed during their working life.



  • Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. No private entity could get away with it. It's only legal because the government is doing it. I'm not saying it is literally something that could be prosecuted like Madoff or whatever.

    Are you fucking kidding me? Unfunded pensions will exceed 3 trillion dollars this year. It's "legal" because it's a fuck up, not fraud, and there's no easy way to fix it.



  • @Captain said:

    Unfunded pensions

    Are paid by company profits, not by withholding the employee income to pay ANOTHER employee.



  • Hey, that's great. Taxes are paid by company profits too!



  • Hey that's great! And when the pension goes bankrupt, the last people in line lose!



  • Hey that's great! And when the private sector fails, it'll be because the retirees didn't save enough!


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Captain said:

    > Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. No private entity could get away with it. It's only legal because the government is doing it. I'm not saying it is literally something that could be prosecuted like Madoff or whatever.

    Are you fucking kidding me? Unfunded pensions will exceed 3 trillion dollars this year. It's "legal" because it's a fuck up, not fraud, and there's no easy way to fix it.

    No, you're just continuing to be stupid for some reason. Underfunded pension funds are at least funded by investing in stuff. That's not what Social Security does at all. If the fund managers spent all of the money either paying out current pensioners or some other random consumption (i.e., what Social Security does), they'd probably go to jail or at least get fired.

    No matter what retirement plans have problems or what those problems look like, those problems don't change the obvious fact that Social Security is a giant Ponzi scheme.



  • It's a pension.



  • Companies won't fail because the pension failed....

    TDEMS

    But social security can fail in isolation of any other function of government.



  • Companies won't fail because the pension failed....

    But social security can fail in isolation of any other function of government.

    So you're saying they're similar?


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Captain said:

    It's a pension.

    That relies on a Ponzi scheme instead of investments.



  • Except that unfunded pensions are unfunded because their net present value is negative. They might have "invested in stuff", but they effectively don't own any investments since their liabilities severely outpace their assets. In short, they have to use their "investments" to pay out early, just like social security does. They are eating into their capital and will go bankrupt. Just like social security. And for the same reasons.



  • Just like every other pension.



  • They're similar in this regard.

    Pension: There isn't enough funds to pay off every person should they immediately need the pension.
    SS: There isn't enough funds to pay off every person should they simultaneously retire at 70 by some paradox.

    They're different in this regard.

    Pension: Paid from company profits, not from taking Sam's income to pay Paul's pension.
    SS: Government does not make profits, therefore it takes Same's income to pay Paul's social security.

    That difference is what makes SS a Ponzi, and unfunded pensions not a Ponzi.



  • Except that SS is literally paid by company profits, taken in the form of "taxes" (or rather, that SSA contribution)



  • @Captain said:

    They are eating into their capital and will go bankrupt. Just like social security. And for the same reasons.

    Except a company can pay off a negative unfunded pension by liquidating.
    The government cannot. There's literally nothing of value.



  • @Captain said:

    Except that SS is literally paid by company profits, taken in the form of "taxes" (or rather, that SSA contribution fee)

    Only if you think the government can enslave the population at any point...

    Social security tax is a requirement.

    I can quit a company at any time.



  • Except a company can pay off a negative unfunded pension by liquidating.

    The SSA owns government bonds they can liquidate. Just like a private pension would.



  • Yes, because "forcing" you to save for your retirement so you're not a burden on everyone is "slavery"


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Captain said:

    Except that unfunded pensions are unfunded because their net present value is negative. They might have "invested in stuff", but they effectively don't own any investments since their liabilities severely outpace their assets. In short, they have to use their "investments" to pay out early, just like social security does. They are eating into their capital and will go bankrupt. Just like social security. And for the same reasons.

    Yeah, but at least they're not just blowing the money every week.

    @Captain said:

    Just like every other pension.

    Except for the Ponzi thing.

    @Captain said:

    The SSA owns government bonds they can liquidate. Just like a private pension would.

    Just like when any other Ponzi operator "borrows" from his investors, eh?



  • :rolleyes: xaade's getting it. We disagree in parts, but he's getting it.



  • @Captain said:

    The SSA owns government bonds

    Bonds are not like corporate assets.

    If a company goes under, they can sell assets that still have value.

    Government bonds are worthless if the government collapses.

    It's like. borrowing from itself. It's not backed by collateral.



  • The SSA is a government agency, but it is also a pension fund. It's not borrowing from itself. You can say that the government is borrowing from itself, but that's a different claim. And it's not quite true, either, because SSA contributions pay for bonds on the open market.



  • @Captain said:

    xaade's getting it. We disagree in parts, but he's getting it.

    Funny because I'm saying the same exact thing that @boomzilla is saying.

    I'm just phrasing it to fit within your misunderstanding.



  • :facepalm:



  • @Captain said:

    The SSA is a government agency, but it is also a pension fund. It's not borrowing from itself. You can say that the government is borrowing from itself, but that's a different claim. And it's not quite true, either, because SSA contributions pay for bonds on the open market.

    It's borrowing from an asset-less entity.



  • I think the solution for the economy in my area would be to prohibit exporting food. It's ridiculous we exchange 4tons of food for each iPhone when there is people starving next door.

    Exporting it makes food more expensive for the locals, to the only benefit of bringing foreign currency, that is only useful to buy high-tech things that aren't nearly as essential.



  • Do you understand that the problem is not Social Security? That the problem is that Boomers didn't save enough? And that now they're a burden on the rest of us?

    The structure of their savings is irrelevant. What matters is the cash-flows. And the present value of their cashflows is negative. That is the problem. THAT IS THE PROBLEM. THAT THE BOOMERS BANKRUPTED THEMSELVES ON A SCALE NEVER SEEN IN HISTORY.

    Social Security is just one of the faces of this problem. Pensions are the exact same face, with the exact same causes. The stock market has faced runs because of this problem. Etc.



  • @Captain said:

    Do you understand that the problem is not Social Security? That the problem is that Boomers didn't save enough? And that now they're a burden on the rest of us?

    But, they are only a burden because social security exists.

    @Captain said:

    THAT THE BOOMERS BANKRUPTED THEMSELVES ON A SCALE NEVER SEEN IN HISTORY.

    LOLOLOLOLOL

    You realize we have social security because of the Great Depression....?



  • No, they're a burden because they don't have enough money to survive past the demographic assumptions they made when they made their retirement funds and pensions.



  • I sure do. And the Great Depression is small potatoes compared to the demographic depression that's starting up, slowly.



  • @Captain said:

    No, they're a burden because they don't have enough money to survive past the demographic assumptions they made when they made their retirement funds and pensions.

    If you ended social security right now, stopped all payments, stopped all collections.

    How would they be a burden?



  • Because their retirement accounts can't pay for their homes and food until they die.



  • @Captain said:

    Because their retirement accounts can't pay for their homes and food until they die.

    And....

    They could go back to work?

    Look, it sucks, but I have little sympathy. Boomers are retiring at 59 and I'll have to retire at 70, or maybe not at all.

    Meh...

    This is why you don't create entitlements in the first place.

    I hoped you learned your lesson.

    (Or are you going to vote for Bernie anyway?)



  • So what does them going back to work mean for the rest of us? The Millenials are competing with people with 40 more years of experience, stuck in service jobs, making nothing for ourselves. And by making nothing, I don't mean we're not making money, but that we're not doing jobs that will improve our futures.



  • This is why you don't create entitlements in the first place.

    The problem isn't the entitlement. The problem is that they're fucking broke.



  • @Captain said:

    So what does them going back to work mean for the rest of us?

    Don't know.

    I usually only concern myself with myself when I'm worried about how well off I am.



  • @Captain said:

    The problem isn't the entitlement. The problem is that they're fucking broke.

    And they feel entitled to my income.



  • You should start thinking about it. The demographic problem is coming for you soon.



  • That would be true of a pension, too... "your" profits as a shareholder, up in smoke, because of pensions.



  • And when it does, I'll vote to end social security.

    Problem solved.

    Next problem please.



  • What are these mystical pensions?

    I have yet to work for a company that offers them.


Log in to reply