The
definition of a Ponzi scheme, in part, is one that takes funds
from someone with the promise of paying it back in the future with
attractive dividends or earnings. And using the funds in the
meanwhile to reward another to whom the same promises were made. All
of which has been done without truly investing those funds.
In that respect, Social Security fails the legitimacy test. Despite repeated political promises and certifications, there is no true investment, nor the use of a lock box or reserve accounting of funds. Nothing of what is required in a legitimate insurance program. Despite the aura of insurance, there is no element of that.
Those getting benefits are receiving them from taxes collected on plan participants still working.
Just one example of a lack of Social Security equity that any insurance program would have: Should their husbands earn similar incomes, two spouses will get the same benefits from their spouse’s retirement, even though one wife could never have paid a penny in Social Security taxes. The working wife gets an adjustment only if she had earned more than her spouse.
There is little to show for payments made by a worker who dies before he is 65. And so on, as I have noted in the past. (See the Earl J. Weinreb NewsHole® comments.)
In that respect, Social Security fails the legitimacy test. Despite repeated political promises and certifications, there is no true investment, nor the use of a lock box or reserve accounting of funds. Nothing of what is required in a legitimate insurance program. Despite the aura of insurance, there is no element of that.
Those getting benefits are receiving them from taxes collected on plan participants still working.
Just one example of a lack of Social Security equity that any insurance program would have: Should their husbands earn similar incomes, two spouses will get the same benefits from their spouse’s retirement, even though one wife could never have paid a penny in Social Security taxes. The working wife gets an adjustment only if she had earned more than her spouse.
There is little to show for payments made by a worker who dies before he is 65. And so on, as I have noted in the past. (See the Earl J. Weinreb NewsHole® comments.)
No comments:
Post a Comment