"Social Security," the ultimate ripoff pyramid scheme

Written by Al Barger
Published August 18, 2004

The supposed system of "Social Security" may constitute the biggest financial scam in human history - the biggest pyramid scheme ripoff ever. The very name of the program has an Orwellian tinge- meaning really exactly the opposite of what it implies, as this socialist program has done great damage to the actual financial security of our retirees.

Let's consider what retirement funds should look like, how Social Security actually works, it's history, outlook for the future, a better solution, and then some ideas on how to get from here to there.

WHAT RETIREMENT FUNDS SHOULD LOOK LIKE

Really, it's fairly simple. You take a part of your income each week and put it away. Without getting overly risky, you would expect to put it in bonds or basic mutual funds in the stock market, where the risk is spread across many companies in the mutual funds portfolio. Even if there's a dip in the market for a year or two (as has been the case recently), the market is always up over a period of years, and business goes on. That's because you're investing in the productivity of the whole economy and all the people in the companies in which you invest, who are being held to account in the market. You still own a piece of Halliburton or GE, even if the current cash value goes down for a minute or two.

Anyway, if the average factory or office worker put away the tenth part of their income in common low risk investments for 40+ years, they would have most of a million dollars built up. It's not voodoo economics or wishful thinking, just the basic logic of compound interest. Your savings becomes the backbone of the whole economy, providing basic seed money for building homes and businesses- and thus you get a cut of the harvest.

That's YOURS. You wouldn't be needing a Medicare drug benefit that the federal government has no way to pay for, or depend on hoping that Congress can raise money for you. It's yours by right, because you EARNED it. You've got money to live on, and money to pass on to your heirs.

HOW SOCIAL SECURITY ACTUALLY "WORKS"

The federal government managed to turn the simplest thing in the world into a huge, bankrupt unworkable disaster getting ready to happen. They've taken people's money for all their lives, and just blown it. They've turned hardworking retirees into welfare rats depending on Congress to take their money out of young people's hides.

Social Security FICA tax takes about 15% off the top of the average person's paycheck. That's half from you, and half from your employer- which is money they have to figure as wages to you.

Out of that, they pay skimpy benefits to current retirees, maybe as much as $1,000 a month. That's sure not much to live on, and not the half or even third of what you'd have if you had simply kept your money in the first place. Plus, you have no account to pass on when you die.

page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
Unreformed hawkish Hoosier hillbilly and sometimes candidate Al Barger runs the still squeezin' down the psychodelic Kentucky moonshine at MoreThings.com, what with the paranoid religious visions and the Pentacostal music and visions of God and anarchy running amok and such. Somebody oughta call the cops to report his out of control freedom of conscience. Till they come to take him away somewhere where he can't hurt anyone else, you can check out his weekly column of NEW ALBUM RELEASES.
Keep reading for information and comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own!
"Social Security," the ultimate ripoff pyramid scheme
Published: August 18, 2004
Type:
Section: Politics
Filed Under: Books: Politics and Affairs
Writer: Al Barger
Al Barger's BC Writer page
Al Barger's personal site
Spread the Word
Like this article?
Email this
Submit to del.icio.us Save to del.icio.us
RSS Feeds
All RSS Feeds (240+)
Comments on this article
BC articles by Al Barger
Books: Politics and Affairs
All Politics Articles
Al Barger's personal weblog
All BC articles
All BC Comments

Comments

#1 — August 19, 2004 @ 02:59AM — Evilwhiteguy [URL]

I just wish the Galveston option was available to more people. I would love to opt out of the system and provide for my own retirement.

#2 — August 19, 2004 @ 08:22AM — simon hb [URL]

What you seem to be suggesting, if we boil it down, is that instead of the State running social security, people should be forced to put the cash that would usually go to the state into a private scheme.

In other words, you're just privatising people's futures. Great if they choose well - and the company they invest with doesn't rake off too much in the way of adminstration fees, and doesn't invest too unwisely. But what if that's not the case?

Speaking as someone in the UK, I reckon most people who had a pension scheme arrangement with the Mirror Group, or with Equitable Life, would far rather had had their money being looked after by the government than private companies. That's the whole point of social security.

Oh, and "Orwellian" - yes, it does sound Orwellian, although I suspect you take that to mean that it sounds like 1984 rather than a mutual scheme created by a socialist.

#3 — August 19, 2004 @ 10:24AM — RedTard

We'll get a good idea of how the Social Security problem might play out by keeping an eye on countries like France. They pay out alot on social programs and their population growth is stagnant.

#4 — August 19, 2004 @ 10:46AM — Bernard

And population growth is the sign of great welfare, check out most of Azia and Africa for evidence.

Or as the world bank puts it:

'Many countries are trying to slow their population growth in order to raise standards of living. In general, countries that have managed to increase their GNP per capita have tended to contain population growth while following sensible economic policies that can encourage stability and increases in both human and physical capital'

Now that goes for third world countries mostly. But surely if anything, a decreasing population in time lessens demands on public social security systems.

It will take some time to happen, but in the meantime just stay at home. Fight one less war, and you will be able to provide for a whole bunch of old people.

#5 — August 19, 2004 @ 11:10AM — jadester [URL]

but we are approaching the same sort of problem here in the UK. And a big factor in recent scandals involving private pension funds is that the governments (it hasn't been *just* the current one, or *just* the last one) are all too willing to "turn a blind eye" (or as is often the case, not-so-blind eye) to mass corruption in the world of finance.

#6 — August 19, 2004 @ 12:40PM — RedTard

Bernard,

I never said or implied that a low population growth rate indicated a poor economy. As you pointed out it is quite the opposite, modern industrialized countries tend to have low birth rates and rely on immigration for any overall growth.

What I was commenting on is the ratio of retirees to working adults. Many European countries have long life spans and are not having as many children as they have in the past. This could put a strain on their systems when a larger percentage of the population is retirees just as it will in the US. The US has a higher population growth rate than most which will buy us some extra time. Perhaps we could learn a few things by watching how Europe deals with the problem.

#7 — August 20, 2004 @ 03:59AM — Bernard

You are right. You never did say that and I am a lazy reader.

The US has higher productivity rate than most (if not all) European countries, which will help face the problem at your end of the ocean to some extent.

In the end I think it is mostly a matter of political will and priority setting. Europe will face aging populations first, but most post-industrial states will follow. We cannot possibly tell our parents we don't have enough money to give the elderly a decent life. The question is, whether we will want to spend it, and what other spending we can cut back in finding the money.

Interestingly, if you look at India and China, they are at the other end of this process. Experiencing growth through a population boom which demographically builds up to a heap of people of productive age, fewer children, and even fewer old folk. I have to wonder how much of economics and sociology could be replaced by demography, when I see such numbers.

But being a (somewhat economy oriented) sociologist myself, I won't pursue the question, you feel free to though.

Want comments emailed to you? No spam, promise! Address:

Add your comment, speak your mind

(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/18820)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.





Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!

Fresh
Articles
Fresh
Comments