OK, so someone asked whether Social Security was a Ponzi scheme and whether it was sustainable. I patiently explained the difference, and that it was sustainable (I’ve seen the figures, and it’s easily sustainable*). And three people thumbed me down.
So my question is this: is there something wrong with you? I’ve seen this behavior over and over again: someone makes a factual statement, and a right winger who doesn’t know the facts thumbs him down rather than paying attention to what he said.
Here’s part of my answer:
“A Ponzi scheme promises a return on investment, and then pays old investors with money received from new ones to create the illusion of that return.
“Social Security isn’t a vested pension fund, it is a pay-as-you-go annuity. In essence, you pay Grandpa’s benefits, and when you retire, your kids pay yours. Aside from the small amount in the Social Security Trust Fund, the money that goes into Social Security doesn’t earn interest and nobody pretends it does.”
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?…
So — if you’re one of those who ignores the facts, why?
*According to the 2009 Trustees’ report, “Social Security could be brought into actuarial balance over the next 75 years with changes equivalent to an immediate 16 percent increase in the payroll tax (from a rate of 12.4 percent to 14.4 percent) or an immediate reduction in benefits of 13 percent or some combination of the two.”
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html
So not only is Social Security sustainable over the next 75 years, real economic growth will easily outstrip a tax increase that’s equal to only a year or two of average economic growth.
Tarheel, to answer your question (since you don’t have an email option), I was being tongue-in-cheek. Of course that person is allowed to say whatever they want, I’m not Yahoo Answers and even if I had the power I wouldn’t censor what they say.
The OMB report is no different in essence than the report of the SS trustees, in fact, the SS trustees are a bit harsher (the projections depend on assumptions, e.g., how quickly the economy will grow). So the same remedies mentioned by the Trustees should keep Social Security solvent under OMB’s assumptions as well. Such remedies have been used many times in the history of Social Security to account for people living longer, the baby boom, recessions like this one, etc.