28 Mar 2025 8:14 am
Well, I agree with much of what you said here Vegas. You and I differ on the 2nd solution you propose. I'm going to explain why I do not like (and no conservative should like) your second proposed solution.Vegas » Yesterday, 3:52 pm » wrote: ↑ Ponzi SchemeVs Social Security
Ponzi SchemeSocial Security
- Money from new investors is used to pay returns to earlier investors
- Eventually collapses when there aren’t enough new investors
- Not backed by actual investments
Yes, it would appear to meet the criteria of a Ponzi scheme. The biggest difference is that when the government does it, it is legal. So, what is the solution?
- Taxes from current workers are used to pay benefits to current retirees
- Faces financial strain when there aren’t enough workers to support retirees
- Trust fund is invested in government bonds, but there are no private investments
Well, some say to raise the retirement age, increase payroll taxes, lift the payroll tax cap, reduce benefits for higher earners, and index benefits more slowly.
These solutions suck ^^^.
My idea:
1. Privatizing SS is an option. In fact, it may be the only viable option. It has a lot of problems that go along with it, but I think the benefits of privatization ultimately outweigh the current and future option.
Or
2. Cap off who can take it out. I doubt Bill Gates needs a social security check. Yes, he paid into it, thus he has a right to it, but seriously? We already do a form of this anyway with welfare. We pay money into the state for welfare benefits. However, we can't collect on it unless we qualify for it. Why not the same idea for the ultra-rich?
- The concept is that everyone pays into a fund while they are working and are entitled to payments out of the fund once retired.
- Regardless of how successful someone has become, they did in fact work and paid into the fund. Trust fund babies who do not work will not get social security because they never earn "wages".
- All people who work and contribute to a fund should be treated exactly the same way. Drawing artificial lines as to who can and cannot receive social security, even though everyone contributed is what Democrats do. It is not based on "fairness" but based on who an elite group of people decide should and should not receive retirement funds, even though they contributed.
- By doing this, you open the door to Democrats later saying that more blacks should get social security, using "Millionaire" retirement funds; Democrats could decide to pay reparations to blacks using "millionaire" retirement funds; Democrats could choose to fund "special" programs using funds contributed by people with "white privilege". You do not want to open Pandora's ****** on this!
- I don't care if a Trillionaire pulls his retirement from Social Security, as long as its based upon what he contributed. That keeps things honest.