"Social Security," the ultimate ripoff pyramid scheme

Written by Al Barger
Published August 18, 2004
page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Social Security pays this pittance to current retirees, then they take every leftover penny and spend it - right now. There's no "lock box" as Al Gore talked about in 2000. There is NO Social Security trust fund. That $500 you paid last month in FICA taxes? Gone.

What do they do with it? It doesn't much matter. The feds might as well be buying crack rocks with your money and smoking them, cause the money is just as gone as if they had.

This leaves old folks dependent from month to month on the ability of the government to extract money from people working now, begging Congress for sustenance like welfare rats- despite having paid into the system all their lives. You may have been paying, but that money was not invested or even just saved under the mattress, and they only way YOU get anything is by the favor of Congress.

That favor of Congress also extends to SSI disability benefits, which add a big bunch of straight up welfare to the already untenable economic structure of Social Security. Blind and lame and mentally challenged or simply emotionally unstable citizens draw tends of billions of dollars from the till. This obviously does not help the economic viability of the system.

Note also that Congress does not HAVE to give you anything. A legitimate retirement fund is yours, and you have every right to cash in your accounts and get exactly what they're worth. Legally, though, Congress has no obligation to pay any particular amount of Social Security benefits.

Which is convenient, because soon they won't be able to. This is because the system has been run all along like a scam pyramid scheme. A classic financial pyramid scheme plays on a few people at the beginning of a setup making out good by taking the money from an exponentially increasing bunch of people under them. But as more and more people come in to the bottom, eventually there's no one left to recruit, and a bunch of people are left broke, having lost their money in schemes that had no inherent financial viability.

Likewise Social Security. Rather than safeguarding and investing your money, it's been turned over to the government and squandered. It's not accumulating interest and earnings. It's been smoked up like a crack rock. It's only worked as well as it has because of increasing populations coming up behind to pay. The boomers and Gen Xers are getting ready to find themselves holding the empty bag.

HISTORY OF SOCIAL SECURITY

When the Social Security scheme was started by Franklin Roosevelt in 1935, there were approximately 15 working people paying in for every one current retiree receiving benefits. It didn't take much to make it work with those kinds of numbers, and the modest amount given out in benefits.

page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
Unreformed hawkish Hoosier hillbilly Al Barger runs the still squeezin' down the psychodelic Kentucky moonshine at More Things. What with the paranoid religious visions, the Pentecostal music, 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