Social Security Disability is running out of cash

Post Reply New Topic

Yet, it will still run dry.

A self-fulfilling prophecy of people who can't actually try to solve the issue, rather just say it will fail because it will and then feel emptily vindicated when it fails, not because of its structure but because of the lack of care.

I'm fine with it's failure; that solves the issue as far as I'm concerned.

if by "solves the issue" one means by allowing the hated working/underclass to starve and freeze to death for want of properly funding social security.

Which exactly proves my point. It's solveable through effort. it's the idea of social secuurity that is the implicit issue at hand. Not trying to solve a difficult issue is more of a sign of weakness than having a disability of some kind.

Social Security is Ponzi-like in that it feeds the elderly population at the expense of the younger population. Those born first get paid off from the loot taken from those born later. This will work as long as the younger population continues to grow. BUT.... the birth rate in the U.S. is falling so the system will fall apart when there are not enough younger people to loot to pay off the older people.

When Social Security first went into operation in 1937, there were 35 contributors for ever 1 recipient. Now there are only 3 contributors for every 1 recipient and the situation is deteriorating. When it gets down to 1 contributor for every 1 recipient the system fails.

ruveyn

The problem with welfare systems is the people who run them. They set the criteria to penalise claimants for the most meagre signs of independence (making a cup of tea, tying your own shoelaces etc) and spend millions on scab doctors to enforce those standards.

They would be better off using that money to conduct the systems fairly rather than wasting it on corrupt bureaucracy and police state harassment.

Which discounts it instantly from being a ponzi scheme in part or whole because a ponzi scheme is dependent on the of the payout intentionally being bigger than the input AND the payout must be to the same person who paid.



This is a temporal fallacy. All this proves is that the burden of social security will increase as the number of people covered increases whilst the number who aren't decrease


This is not a ponzi scheme. This is about a system simply being unfeasible because the burden would be too much.

My problem is that nobody seems to want to reform the system and thus make it more efficient because they insist that governments are a set inefficiency simply because they say so.
I think I did see Mitt Romney make an example of medicaid reform, but maybe he's become obsessed with the current Republican craze for flat and rgressive taxes to be used on people below the poverty line.

Well the truth is, once the welfare state goes down, then expect to see pure anarchy on U.S and other Western countries' streets.
The only reason there isn't any full blown rebellion compared to Greece or even Italy? The welfare state.
If people don't have a job but still have an income to live on, they become complacent and can still watch the X-Factor, Dancing with the Stars, etc.

But when welfare runs out and there's no jobs to sustain such a large amount of people, then things will start to turn very, very nasty indeed.

^^^
bread and circuses.

I don't know if this is the case, but surely striving for efficiency and fairness is more important than forcing people to slack off.

The essence of the Ponzi scheme is to pay off cohorts n-1, n-2, .,.., 1 from funds obtained from cohort n.

Eventually for the last cohort there is no further cohort to loot and they are left holding the bag.

It is a transfer scheme that does not produce an additional product.

ruveyn

Exactly, now explain how this makes social security a ponzi-scheme? The payoff must be the same people and must involve the dividends being greater than the input in cash.

Or maybe it's just a sign of having more important issues to focus upon.