this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2025

177 points (97.3% liked)

Progressive Politics

2011 readers

827 users here now

Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)

(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

TokenBoomer@lemmy.world

177

No, Elon Musk, Social Security Isn’t a “Ponzi Scheme” (inthesetimes.com)

submitted 2 days ago by TokenBoomer@lemmy.world to c/progressivepolitics@lemmy.world

29 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Right-wing billionaires have long wanted to shred the safety net. Under Trump, they’re using lies and fears over the deficit to debilitate Social Security.

all 31 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] collapse_already@lemmy.ml 1 points 24 minutes ago

If elected, my plan for saving social security:

Remove the cap on social security withholding.
Include capital gains in income for social security withholding purposes.
Include unrealized capital gains in income for social security withholding purposes.

[–] mrodri89@lemmy.zip 1 points 45 minutes ago

Pretty sure the true ponzii scheme is the stock market.

[–] surewhynotlem@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago

It wasn't. Then in the 1980s, presidents started to spend the fund. Now it's very much like a ponsi scheme.

They just need to put the funds back and let it run like it should've. With interest.

[–] mikenurre@lemmy.world 33 points 1 day ago (2 children)

“Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich.”

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

That's a great quote, do you know the origin?

[–] mikenurre@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

I do not. But I think it will be the defining quote for this current oligarchy we are living through.

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

This quote is widely shared but often attributed to "Anonymous," with no definitive source identified.

[–] Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago (2 children)

It was me

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago

[–] kandoh@reddthat.com 2 points 1 day ago

Big if true

[–] Carvex@lemmy.world 33 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Those who hate a senior safety net so much have never paid into it, thanks to the 176k tax limit.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 23 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Exactly:

A similar reform could be instituted today, say by lifting the cap on earnings that are taxable by Social Security (currently $176,100).

They don’t want to pay into or keep an insurance program that they will never need. To keep it solvent, they would have to pay more into it, and they don’t want to, so they just want to get rid of it.

[–] whotookkarl@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

Fascists like Musk use words only as weapons, never to convey information. He doesn't care it's not a ponzi scheme, he just wants to scare idiots into making bad decisions he can profit from.

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 day ago

Isn't this guy also really into crypto...

[–] tatann@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Social security is spelled "SS", I tought he would be worshipping it instead

[+] Omgboom@lemmy.zip -22 points 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (6 children)

I mean it kind of is lol

Edit: don't take this to mean I am against social security or on Musk's side, but it is

Edit: everyone below here is breaking their neck trying to describe social security without using the word scheme lol

[–] FMT99@lemmy.world 22 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It's really not. A ponzi scheme is an investment scam that pretends you can profit while actually your money is being used to scam other people. And the money obviously ends up going to the guy running the scam.

Social security is a type of national insurance. We all pay a bit into the pot which is then distributed to those who need it. Maybe you'll need unemployment for a while, maybe you'll need care when you're older, maybe you're lucky enough that you'll never need anything. But it's a social safety net for all of us.

And yes most of us don't need it right now, so clever morons like Musk can spin it into "why am I paying for this other guy's unemployment?" That is the real scam, to break our willingness to lend a hand to our neighbors and often to ourselves.

[–] Sludgeyy@lemmy.world -4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment that pays existing investors with money from new investors. The scheme operators don't actually invest the money, and the scheme collapses when it can't attract new investors.

If the United States didn't have younger people to pay into the system, new investors, the "ponzi scheme" collapses.

The US government, the scheme operator, doesn't invest the money it receives. Instead, it hands it to previous investors

Now I'm not against a national insurance or something. But we know even with new investors the SS fund is going to run out.

If the government saved the money it was paid and treated it like a real savings account or treated it like insurance.

But the way it is now, it can't run forever. Just like a ponzi scheme

[–] mrbeano@lemm.ee 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

It IS a scheme, in that it's a system, plan, or action.

It is NOT a Ponzi Scheme because it does not promise investment returns or exaggerate profitability.

It's there to keep retirees & the disabled out of abject poverty, which does not provide returns you can usually see on a balance sheet. Greater good & all that...

[–] Sludgeyy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm not arguing if the system is good or bad. I think there should be a good retirement system in place.

Average person makes 65k in America

SS is 12.4% usually split between employee and employer.

That's 8k a year.

Average SS monthly payment is ~2k

18 to 62 is 44 years of payment.

65k × 12.4% = ~8k per year payment

44 × 8 = ~350k

62 to 78 is 16 years. 2k × 12 = 24k per year

16 × 24k = ~384k

So looking right now if I made average pay, paid SS when I was 18, worked until 62, collected SS at 62, died at 78. I would be looking at a 10% return on my investment

Even more if I live past 78

If I came to you said said. "Would you invest for the next 44 years and I'll give you your money back after and 10% more over 16 years, but I'm going to have to have new people entering my "scheme" to pay you..."

That would be a ponzi scheme.

If the government simply kept the money paid and then paid it back with interest earned loaning it out until time to pay. SS wouldn't be in a crisis.

[–] mrbeano@lemm.ee 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Social Security is an investment in the health of our society, it's not a financial instrument. You can't pool risk and get predictable returns without cutting corners & dropping high-risk members (hello health insurance industry).

It's not a Ponzi Scheme by definition.

[–] Sludgeyy@lemmy.world 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Social Security is an investment

A financial investment?

It's not a Ponzi Scheme by definition.

So you're saying "they" don't define it as a ponzi scheme, so it can't be one?

Gee that's great

[–] FMT99@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

It's an "investment" the same way insurance is an investment. We "invest" in social stability. Lots of people never make it to retirement age, for them SS is likely a net loss.

But as a society we like the idea that the elderly don't go homeless if they don't have means of their own. We like that people who lose their jobs don't lose their daily bread. That's why we have social security. And we accept that in some cases we're the ones that end up paying a bit more than we're getting.

[–] Sludgeyy@lemmy.world 1 points 58 minutes ago

You are trying to argue if SS is good or bad.

I agree that the idea behind SS is a good one

Lots of people never make it to retirement age. For them, SS is likely a net loss

A lot of people are living longer collecting SS for longer. One of the reasons it's failing. One of the reasons they keep pushing the retirement age up.

Imagine making ~15k a year. Paying 1k per year for SS. And then never collecting it.

Someone making minimum is paying 1/15 of their pay for SS

These are the people who are absolutely going to need SS

If the business didn't have to pay SS too and could give it to the worker they could pay workers more.

Which helps these people more, increasing wages by 12.4% for 40+ years or hopefully collecting SS when you're 62-67?

If they saved the money and got 4% interest (10yr bond is 4.32%). They would have 200k saved for retirement.

They have been living on $1250 a month. That's 13 years of retirement in 200k.

That's with the government "not helping them"

Using that 200k to buy a house for retirement could even be a better investment than having to rent when retired. But taking it from them to hopefully give it back does have it's downsides.

They system relies on new wealthy investors and for some investors to not collect. You couldn't run a traditional "saving account" like it because it would be a ponzi scheme.

[–] TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago

In what way?

However, Social Security, unlike a Ponzi scheme, is not inherently fraudulent, nor does the program promise "investors" artificially high returns with little to no risk, a hallmark of this kind of investment fraud. The report above, for example, shows the administration's transparency about expected returns. source

[–] GrundlButter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 1 day ago

I would say it shares a key similarity to a ponzi scheme, but has entirely different goals, methods, and results.

Both of them pay initial "investors" with later investors funds. In a ponzi scheme, this is unknown to the later investors so that they can eventually be left holding the bag. But in social security, this is a known commodity, and the thought is that there will always be more people.

Unfortunately, that last part gets a bit nuanced with population decline and growing needs of the elderly. Either way, it's a good system or a good scheme, but it's definitely not a ponzi scheme. Because just like healthcare, even if we don't fund social security, elderly and disabled people are still going to need care and skip out on their bills when they die. So in the end, we're still paying for it but with extra steps and lawsuits.

[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 day ago

It’s by definition not unless you consider anything that is paid in to by a group that then pays out to a group a Ponzi scheme. What’s your reasoning?

[–] Realitaetsverlust@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

Kinda insane how every european country has a social security system, some better, some worse, but existing everywhere, yet some americans will still pretend like its a bad thing lmao.

[–] Not_mikey@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 day ago

Along with the other things people have mentioned ponzi schemes don't have a backstop . If a ponz scheme becomes insolvent the scheme falls apart. Despite all the doom republicans like to push on social security insolvency, if it happens it'll just get taken out of the general fund. It'll be hell on budget deficits for a while until congress gets its shit together and raises the income cap and solves this but people will still be getting paid.