Of Social Security and Ponzi schemes

During Wednesday's Republican debate, Gov. Rick Perry reiterated his belief that Social Security is a "Ponzi scheme."

By John Schoen and Allison Linn

In the Republican debate Wednesday night, Presidential candidate Rick Perry again called Social Security a Ponzi scheme.

“It is a Ponzi scheme to tell our kids that are 25 or 30 years old today, ‘You’re paying into a program that’s going to be there.’ Anybody that’s for the status quo with Social Security today is involved with a monstrous lie to our kids, and it’s not right,” Perry said during the debate.

A Ponzi scheme, named after investing fraudster Charles Ponzi, is a type of investment fraud in which someone convinces people to invest their money in a product, usually promising very high returns.

In a Ponzi scheme, however, there is no investment. Instead, the fraudster is using the new client’s money to pay off the old clients, and often for personal use as well. The scheme usually falls apart when people try to cash out and realize that there was no real investment in the first place.

The major marker of a Ponzi scheme is that the person running it was lying about how the money was invested. The most famous recent Ponzi scheme involved Bernie Madoff, who is currently in jail after swindling people in a multibillion-dollar scam.

Social Security is much like many other public and private pension systems that operate throughout the country, and the world.

It works like this: People pay a percentage of their earnings into the fund throughout their lifetime, with the promise of getting a consistent payment back when they retire. Millions of Americans rely on Social Security payments for expenses in retirement

Social Security has drawn criticism because it is at risk of becoming underfunded. That’s because the general population is aging, leading to worries that the system will fall short as more Baby Boomers retire and start drawing Social Security checks.

There have been overhauls before, such as under President Reagan.

Much like that 1980s-era overhaul, most people agree that Social Security now needs to be updated to account the fact that people are living longer.

One simple way to get the program back on track would involve raising the age of eligibility for future retirees -- whose longer projected lifespan means they’ll be collecting longer than previous generations. (The age of eligibility already rises gradually based on your birth year.)

Another proposed change would slow the future cost of living adjustments -- which some economists have argued currently rises faster than wage growth. These two changes -- which would not cut current benefits by a dime -- would go a long way to fixing the projected shortfall decades from now.

Critics of the Social Security system also argue that the government is “borrowing” money from the trust because it holds a large surplus of Treasury bonds. But any pension fund, insurance company or other financial entity with future obligations has to set aside money for future claims. U.S. Treasuries are one of the safest places to put that surplus. Some have argued that the trust fund should invest in stocks, but the money has to go somewhere.


 

Do you think Social Security is a Ponzi scheme?

Results with 100 short comments
Total of 11,065 votes - click on the "Display Comments" bar below to sort comments

10.5%
Yes, and we should just get rid of it
1,160 votes
23.2%
Yes, and it needs to be overhauled
2,564 votes
44.3%
No, but it does need to be overhauled
4,898 votes
22.1%
No, I think people are overreacting
2,443 votes
Display Comments:
No, I think people are overreacting

There hasn't been a COLA in the past two years, so I don't know much slower they can go.

  • 2 votes
 - 2:17 pm EDT on Thu Sep 8, 2011
Yes, and we should just get rid of it

Gov. Perry is right. Officials dipping into the SS "lockbox" like a treat box is really a con!

  • 5 votes
 - 2:34 pm EDT on Thu Sep 8, 2011
Yes, and it needs to be overhauled

Call it a Ponzi scheme or Pay-as-you-Go, it's not sustainable.

  • 4 votes
 - 2:41 pm EDT on Thu Sep 8, 2011
Yes, and it needs to be overhauled

SS is a HUGE transfer of wealth from the young to the old. If it were any other two groups (eg. rich to poor) the outcry would be deafening

  • 6 votes
 - 2:47 pm EDT on Thu Sep 8, 2011
No, but it does need to be overhauled

It should be a retirement program as designed, not a social welfare program. Lets stop the giveaways to non payers, and NO medicade.

  • 5 votes
 - 2:53 pm EDT on Thu Sep 8, 2011
Yes, and it needs to be overhauled

Why do you say it's not a Ponzi scheme? As you state, a Ponzi scheme uses money from new investors to pay off previous investors. SS too.

  • 9 votes
 - 3:31 pm EDT on Thu Sep 8, 2011
Yes, and it needs to be overhauled

The pols have, over the years, morphed what was originally a program with noble intent into something that resembles a Ponzi scheme.

  • 3 votes
 - 3:34 pm EDT on Thu Sep 8, 2011
No, but it does need to be overhauled

It's about JOBS! Every new job puts money into SS. Raise eligibility age, & means test. Multimilliionaires don't need SS.

     - 3:36 pm EDT on Thu Sep 8, 2011
    Yes, and it needs to be overhauled

    the problem with this is that anybody with a ss number can work for a little while then collect forever even foreigners its easier for them

    • 7 votes
     - 3:45 pm EDT on Thu Sep 8, 2011
    No, I think people are overreacting

    Perry is an ideological idiot. Social security would be 100% funded if the earnings cap was lifted - if the wealthy paid their fare share.

    • 14 votes
     - 3:50 pm EDT on Thu Sep 8, 2011
    Yes, and it needs to be overhauled

    If the lawmakers would keep their grimy paws out of the pie, there'd be more to go around.

    • 8 votes
     - 4:04 pm EDT on Thu Sep 8, 2011
    No, but it does need to be overhauled

    Raise the full benefit retirement age. Tax 100% of earnings.

    • 8 votes
     - 4:11 pm EDT on Thu Sep 8, 2011
    Yes, and it needs to be overhauled

    Social Security taxes are not set aside, but are placed in the general fund and spend to satisfy the wish lists of politicians.

    • 10 votes
     - 4:17 pm EDT on Thu Sep 8, 2011
    No, I think people are overreacting

    Very minor changes are at that's needed. The critics want to privatize it to put money in their pockets and the pockets of their cronies.

    • 12 votes
     - 4:18 pm EDT on Thu Sep 8, 2011
    Yes, and it needs to be overhauled

    There wouldn't be a problem with SS if the govt. would have used that money that it was intended for in the first place.

    • 8 votes
     - 4:22 pm EDT on Thu Sep 8, 2011
    Yes, and it needs to be overhauled

    I don't remember raiding being part of the initial plan for SS -

    • 6 votes
     - 4:26 pm EDT on Thu Sep 8, 2011
    Yes, and we should just get rid of it

    It's like tell our kids that there's gold at the end of the rainbow!!!

    • 2 votes
     - 4:28 pm EDT on Thu Sep 8, 2011
    Yes, and it needs to be overhauled

    I'm 27 & projected to receive $0 in benefits when I retire. Yet I must pay thousands of dollars a year into that system or else.

    • 4 votes
     - 4:31 pm EDT on Thu Sep 8, 2011
    No, I think people are overreacting

    The problem is that Washington politicians/Federal government have been "borrowing" trillions from the Fund and never repaying those loans.

    • 1 vote
     - 4:32 pm EDT on Thu Sep 8, 2011
    Yes, and it needs to be overhauled

    It _is— underfunded. No annuity could exist that pays current retirees out of current taxpayers. _That's— what makes it a Ponzi scheme.

    • 3 votes
     - dstarke
     - 4:33 pm EDT on Thu Sep 8, 2011
    Yes, and we should just get rid of it

    FDR introduced Social Security a a temporary measure to be phased out after businesses began to provide employees a retirement plan. Well?

    • 7 votes
     - Mikelj
     - 4:35 pm EDT on Thu Sep 8, 2011
    No, but it does need to be overhauled

    With 2 fixes above Gov. should not be allowed to co mingle SS trust funds with other taxes. SS should buy/sell treasuries as it feel fit

       - 4:36 pm EDT on Thu Sep 8, 2011
      No, but it does need to be overhauled

      Though not a Ponzi, the system does have severe unfunded liabilities. The answer is gradual extensions of retirement age and means tests

      • 1 vote
       - 4:36 pm EDT on Thu Sep 8, 2011
      Yes, and it needs to be overhauled

      Simply put..it's a fund that's been looted..and will have to be double funded to be sustainable. Congress is the culprit..

      • 11 votes
       - 4:36 pm EDT on Thu Sep 8, 2011
      No, but it does need to be overhauled

      overhaul & confirm recipients are actually eligible to receive the benefits. There is lots of fraud.

      • 2 votes
       - 4:42 pm EDT on Thu Sep 8, 2011

      Discuss this post

      Don't destroy this government program. If Politicians, school teachers, state workers, federal employees payed into Social Security the government would have a surplus. If the Politiciians in Washington did not raid the program for money to use for other things, their would be a surplus. The Tea Party Republicans are out to destroy this only government pension program so that you will find yourself working for $10.00 an hour the rest of your life at Walmart, Burger King, McDonalds, Denny's, etc. to pay for your Medical Supplement.

        Reply#1 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:21 PM EDT

        Were are the Politicians in Washington going to raid, steal, take money from if we destroy Social Security. They have taken, raided, stoled, etc. money from this government programs for years. Never have they put it back.

          Reply#2 - Thu Oct 20, 2011 7:25 PM EDT

          The government needs to put the parents of welfare recipients to work to support
          their children, and stop using SS Money to fund it, SS would rebound then. SS
          Money is for the workers!

            Reply#3 - Fri Oct 21, 2011 1:39 AM EDT
            You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
            As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.