"Social Security," the ultimate ripoff pyramid scheme
Published August 18, 2004
Numbers were highly favorable, and continued on a favorable path because of the post World War II baby boom, which brought in yet more people to pay another generation of retiree benefits. That many people paying in, and with only modest benefits coming out the other end, the FICA taxes have generated far more money than has been paid out in benefits- even without the benefit of investment income and interest. We're somewhere near the top of that cycle now, with the baby boomers entering their late-career earnings peak.
We're getting ready to get slammed, though, and hard. This financial house of cards is ready to crumble. Social Security has unfunded liabilities for current and future retirees somewhere in the multiple TENS OF TRILLIONS of dollars - and not one red cent put away to pay any of it. Best current estimate I've seen suggests more than $26 trillion in Social Security liabilities alone, besides Medicare and Medicaid, etc.
Somewhere within about 12 - 15 years the FICA taxes coming in will be less month to month than the checks going out, the Social Security checks will start bouncing, and all hell's going to break loose. The federal government has been heavily subsidized for decades by simply writing IOUs to the supposed trust fund, and just spending the Social Security money - hundreds of billions of dollars every year. Before long, the incoming money not only won't provide hundreds of billions of dollars a year to subsidize the rest of the budget, but it won't even pay for current retirees.
When the baby boomers start retiring in mass over the next 20 years, we're going to get down to only about TWO people paying in for each retiree. How is that going to work, with no money saved?
No private company could get away with this. Enron nor WorldCom never mishandled investors money this grotesquely. Executives of these companies are quite properly being sent to prison for financial abuses not the tenth part as bad as Social Security.
By rights, every damned member of Congress -Republican and Democrat- should be doing a perp walk in front of the cameras on their way to penitentiaries for the financial fraud of Social Security - let alone anything else they're doing. Of course this won't happen, cause they're the ones making the laws. Besides, they're just doing it for The Children, or some such foolishness.
THE CURRENT SYSTEM, BEST CASE
Best case for the current system would be that Congress cuts benefits even below the already inadequate returns, raises the retirement age to squeeze a few more years of work and payments from the boomers, raise the crap out of the already exorbitant taxes- and pray for luck to limp the system by.
THE CURRENT SYSTEM, WORST CASE
- "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
Save to del.icio.us
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.







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.