The National Ponzi Scheme

shagdrum

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Messages
6,568
Reaction score
44
Location
KS
The National Ponzi Scheme
by Walter E. Williams

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) was set up to combat fraudulent practices. The SEC's website explains that "Ponzi schemes are a type of illegal pyramid scheme named for Charles Ponzi, who duped thousands of New England residents into investing in a postage stamp speculation scheme back in the 1920s." It goes on to say, "Decades later, the Ponzi scheme continues to work on the 'rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul' principle, as money from new investors is used to pay off earlier investors until the whole scheme collapses." That is how the SEC described the recent Bernard Madoff $50 billion Ponzi scheme, "a stunning fraud that appears to be of epic proportions."

A Ponzi scheme does not generate any wealth whatsoever; that is why it ultimately collapses. As Circuit Judge Anderson said in the 1922 Lowell v. Brown case, the Ponzi scheme was "simply the old fraud of paying the earlier comers out of the contributions of the later comers." So long as the number of late comers -- you might call them suckers -- grows, the fraudulent scheme has life.

We have a national Ponzi scheme where Congress collects about $785 billion in Social Security taxes from about 163 million workers to send out $585 billion to 50 million Social Security recipients. Social Security's trustees tell us that the surplus goes into a $2.2 trillion trust fund to meet future obligations. The problem is whatever difference between Social Security taxes and benefits paid out is spent by Congress. What the Treasury Department does is give the Social Security Trust Fund non-marketable "special issue government securities" that are simply bookkeeping entries that are IOUs.

According to Social Security trustee estimates, around 2016 the amount of Social Security benefits paid will exceed taxes collected. That means one of two things, or both, must happen: Congress will raise taxes and/or slash promised Social Security benefits. Each year the situation will get worse since the number of retirees is predicted to increase relative to the number in the workforce paying taxes. In 1940, there were 42 workers per retiree, in 1950 there were 16, today there are 3 and in 20 or 30 years there will be 2 or fewer workers per retiree.

Social Security is unsustainable because it is not meeting the first order condition of a Ponzi scheme, namely expanding the pool of suckers. Social Security has been one congressional lie after another since its inception. Here's what a 1936 Social Security pamphlet said: "After the first 3 years -- that is to say, beginning in 1940 -- you will pay, and your employer will pay, 1.5 cents for each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year ... beginning in 1943, you will pay 2 cents, and so will your employer, for every dollar you earn for the next 3 years. ... And finally, beginning in 1949, twelve years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. That is the most you will ever pay." The pamphlet also said, "Beginning November 24, 1936, the United States government will set up a Social Security account for you. ... The checks will come to you as a right."

That's another lie. In .Flemming vs Nestor (1960), the U.S. Supreme court held that you have no "accrued property rights" to a Social Security check. That means Congress can do anything it wishes with Social Security. There is little or nothing that can be done to prevent the economic and political chaos that will result from the collapse of Social Security.

Today's recipients of Social Security, along with their powerful AARP lobby, represent a powerful political force. Few politicians are willing to risk their careers alienating today's senior citizens for the benefit of Americans in 2040. After all what do today's seniors and politicians care about a 2040 calamity? They will be dead by then.
 
The difference between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme is that in SS the older investers die off and no more money is due.
 
The difference between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme is that in SS the older investers die off and no more money is due.

You appear to have missed the point of the piece.
It's a pyramid scheme where the people at the bottom pay the rewards for the people at the top of the pyramid. "paying the earlier comers out of the contributions of the later comers."

The fact that people were expected to die doesn't invalidate this comparison, it merely means that it'll take longer for the system to crash. At the time of it's creation, the life expectancy was only about the late fifties/early sixties depending on gender. Now, it's in the late 70s/early 80s, the access to expensive high tech medicine and life savings procedures have increased, and there was a population boom after World War 2.

So that pyramid scheme that relies upon a large base of people paying to support the smaller top of the pyramid is about to fail. Ratio of working people to social security recipients is narrowing. It's only a matter of time before the system is no longer able to fund itself. Probably around 2016.
 
Yep I keep reading about how the ratio will reach a tipping point some time in the next decade or so. Doesn't surprise me. What it simply means is that anybody under fifty or so will spend the next decade or so paying for folks who have already retired, and people in that age bracket should not plan on receiving any social security at all. I personally figure I'll be working until I die. Having accepted that fact, I'm cool with however this plays out, I just don't look forward to the next couple of administrations coming up with all kinds of social security 'rescue plans' and wasting more of my time & resources.
 
It's already 14% of payroll and is usually the highest deduction on a paycheck.
The options are:

Raise the rate
Raise the limit (currently 104,000 income)
Lower payments

Or a combination of the above.

I'd like to see the rate cut in half which would immediately stimulate business and workers probably better and more equitably that some huge porky stimulus package.
 
Having accepted that fact, I'm cool with however this plays out,
You're cool with paying extremely high social security tax holdings throughout your career with no intention of ever seeing a benefit for it?

I'm not.

Working without the false "government retirement" option is fine, but having to continue to increasingly pay into a ponzi scheme that I know full well is not sustainable, and being forced to continually pay MORE into it, should be criminal.

I just don't look forward to the next couple of administrations coming up with all kinds of social security 'rescue plans' and wasting more of my time & resources.

I'm not sure what scenario you're imagining. Do you think it'll just crash in 2016 and the idea will be scrapped? Most likely, without some kind of radical change, the system will simply start requiring increases payroll taxes. But, at some point, we're likely to have 1 retired person being supported by just 2 working people. Are you willing to endure a 30-40% s.s. tax with no hope of ever seeing that money back?
 
You're cool with paying extremely high social security tax holdings throughout your career with no intention of ever seeing a benefit for it?

I'm not.

I rarely see a benefit from any of the taxes I pay. At least with SS I know that there is some small part of it going to help some retired folks out there. I'm not naive enough to think that there aren't way too many pockets along the way for it to do any good, but the fact is nothing you or I will ever do or say will change what is going to happen, so I am choosing to take solace in the fact that I am helping some retired person out there somewhere.

I'm not sure what scenario you're imagining. Do you think it'll just crash in 2016 and the idea will be scrapped? Most likely, without some kind of radical change, the system will simply start requiring increases payroll taxes. But, at some point, we're likely to have 1 retired person being supported by just 2 working people. Are you willing to endure a 30-40% s.s. tax with no hope of ever seeing that money back?

The really sad part is, I agree with you, but you're so eager to argue that you can't see past that. What I meant by the 'rescue plans' that I'm sure future politicians will come up with is exactly that - lots of talk and wasted money trying to set the system straight, which is something we both can AGREE is not the way to go, correct?

You've done a fine job explaining why the system will ultimately fail, and I think anybody with a triple digit IQ can figure out that you are correct, but I guarantee you future politicians aren't going to let it fail without trying to make themselves heroes trying to spend their way out of it instead of raising the social security payroll tax.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The really sad part is, I agree with you, but you're so eager to argue that you can't see past that.
It's not that I'm eager to argue, I'm seeking clarification because I simply don't understand your rational here.


I rarely see a benefit from any of the taxes I pay. At least with SS I know that there is some small part of it going to help some retired folks out there.
I just think that you need to be careful when you take solace in something that is bad. Because it lulls you into a sense of complacency and it can also leave you feeling totally powerless.

No one might hear your lone voice, but you're not alone on this issue and it's important to yell for change before it bankrupts us all.
 
It's not that I'm eager to argue, I'm seeking clarification because I simply don't understand your rational here.

I just think that you need to be careful when you take solace in something that is bad. Because it lulls you into a sense of complacency and it can also leave you feeling totally powerless.

No one might hear your lone voice, but you're not alone on this issue and it's important to yell for change before it bankrupts us all.

I gotcha. I just choose to pick my battles and SS isn't one I deem worth fighting - yet. Realistically, the taxpayers won't tolerate payroll taxes going as high as 30-40% for social security. I think it is more likely that before it gets to that point the politicians will try to fund social security benefits from elsewhere and thus 'rescue' the taxpayers. You and I know that will never work, but I guarantee it won't keep them from trying. When that battle surfaces, I will yell for change by voting for the candidate who isn't going to further screw things up.

Arguably, raising the eligibility age periodically is the only way to start keeping the ratio at an acceptable level, but there's no guarantee even that will work. What I'd rather just see is them to say anybody born after year X will not receive social security benefits and kill the program that way.

On a broader scale, we should be careful saying when people should yell for change. That is exactly what happened two months ago and you already see the results. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you (and many others on this forum) don't like the change you see taking place, lol. And yet, the overwhelming majority of Americans voted for it.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top