this post was submitted on 10 Mar 2025
183 points (96.9% liked)
Progressive Politics
3558 readers
95 users here now
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
A financial investment?
So you're saying "they" don't define it as a ponzi scheme, so it can't be one?
Gee that's great
You are trying to argue if SS is good or bad.
I agree that the idea behind SS is a good one
A lot of people are living longer collecting SS for longer. One of the reasons it's failing. One of the reasons they keep pushing the retirement age up.
Imagine making ~15k a year. Paying 1k per year for SS. And then never collecting it.
Someone making minimum is paying 1/15 of their pay for SS
These are the people who are absolutely going to need SS
If the business didn't have to pay SS too and could give it to the worker they could pay workers more.
Which helps these people more, increasing wages by 12.4% for 40+ years or hopefully collecting SS when you're 62-67?
If they saved the money and got 4% interest (10yr bond is 4.32%). They would have 200k saved for retirement.
They have been living on $1250 a month. That's 13 years of retirement in 200k.
That's with the government "not helping them"
Using that 200k to buy a house for retirement could even be a better investment than having to rent when retired. But taking it from them to hopefully give it back does have it's downsides.
They system relies on new wealthy investors and for some investors to not collect. You couldn't run a traditional "saving account" like it because it would be a ponzi scheme.