Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Steve steveson wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
The SS system is definitely broken, although people over 100 years of age will only become more common so this is something we'll see more of. Some studies predict that people born today could live as long as 140.

Social Security was built on a completely flawed premise(a pyramid of age distribution as opposed to the reality of a modern society which is a more even distribution) so the entire system really needs to be torn down and completely rebuilt. As things stand, I'll never get money out of it.

That will only happen once the pensioners around today have miked the system for everything they can, claiming more than they put in, whilst shouting "I am getting what I paid for", whilst we will pay in far more than we get out at the end. Same as with final salary pensions, but much worse (I'm a little bitter today as I got something in the post today telling me my pension contributions will go up to cover a shortfall in the current fund, something I have been in for 3 years, but its all ok as people currently in receipt will still get their pension!!! So they lose nothing and I pay for a shortfall created before I joined...)

Pyramid schemes are always doomed to fail. The problem with having the govt run a pyramid scheme as vast as Social Security is that you get so many voters collecting payouts that the elected politicians that are the ones that have to overhaul or disband the program are afraid to touch it because they don't want to lose an election over it.

 Ouze wrote:
Yeah, I do exactly the same thing. If it's perceived as a bad posting style, I'll refrain from doing it. My rationale was that in political stories especially I don't want to be perceived as trying to put a spin on the story in the OP, I prefer to wait a few posts.

Truthfully this tangent might be a fruitful nuts & bolts thread if this is something that bothers people because - at least speaking for myself - I was oblivious that this annoyed people. On the other hand, if these behaviors mostly happen in the OT, that might be better here.

If anyone is more guilty of this type of posting, it'd be me.

I've been accused of posting w/o sources, w/ too much sources, fisking too much, cherry picking articles, not transcribing the whole article...etc... *shrug*

Seems like people have different expectations of what an OT forum should be.

The one thing I've tried to do, is not spam multiple threads. I think it's better to keep it within the existing threads, even if the subject matter may deviate a bit.

It's why I have that "political junkie" bucket...

Or, my favorite soap box, anything related to Benghazi... I'd posted it in the most recent thread (even resurrect the thread) so that the anyone else can easily get the back story/previous debate topic w/o rehashing it in a different thread.

But, back on topic: So in a country of 300+ million citizen, is it strange that I don't think it's a big deal that 6.5 million SS numbers seems fraudulant? That's what... 2% ish of the entire SS accounts that are suspiciously fraudulent? That's pretty damn good if you ask me...

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 Alpharius wrote:
The LAST thing the OT FOURM needs is a facilitator for a conveyor belt of 'controversial topics'.

My thoughts exactly. Which is why I have attempted to avoid starting these topics.

 Alpharius wrote:
If you're not going to add something, if you're just going to post a link and a quote from the link, I ask again, what is the point?

As I have said above the reason that I typically do not post my thoughts on the subject in the opening post is to avoid constricting the discussion, or dissuading people from taking part because they think that an agenda is being pursued. All I am trying to accomplish is to aid discussion in the Off-Topic board. Sometimes it is a topic that I am unfamiliar with and am interested in hearing other people's thoughts on the subject.

And you have NO opinion to open up with, no comment to share with us, at all?!?

OK.

 Alpharius wrote:
And you have NO opinion to open up with, no comment to share with us, at all?!?

OK.

I don't believe I ever claimed I had no opinions on the subjects that I share in the Off-Topic forum. Had I no opinion on the subject, or did not think that it was worth sharing the posting it would be a less than fruitful use of my free time. I typically do not post my thoughts on the subject in the opening post is to avoid constricting the discussion, or dissuading people from taking part because they think that an agenda is being pursued. If it is on a topic that I am unfamiliar with, such as this very one, I am more content to read the replies of others to fill in gaps in my knowledge.

Clearly you have an opinion, and possibly even an agenda.

Unless you tell us what it is, oftentimes we left with "Swoop-n-Poop" and/or "Watch The World Burn".

For example, we still don't know you think about the subject of this thread.

If someone posts a link and a story and doesn't at least post their point of view on it, I'm far less likely to waist my time sharing my point of view with a post.

"Start us off or GTFO!" - Abe Lincoln

 Alpharius wrote:
Clearly you have an opinion, and possibly even an agenda.

Unless you tell us what it is, oftentimes we left with "Swoop-n-Poop" and/or "Watch The World Burn".

As I said before I do not see why my opinion on a topic should frame the discussion and limit the potential for constructive dialogue.

I am getting the impression that the terms "Watch The World Burn" and "OPEN DOOR, THROW GRENADE, CLOSE DOOR" are meant to show some sort of bad faith or mischief on my part. I can assure you and others reading this thread that is not the case. Were that my intent I would be actively posting controversial topics, from clearly biased sources, and framing them in such a way as to cause ill will. I would hope it is apparent that my conduct does not reflect this style of posting.

 Alpharius wrote:
For example, we still don't know you think about the subject of this thread.

As I have said before, if it is on a topic that I am unfamiliar with, such as this very one, I am more content to read the replies of others to fill in gaps in my knowledge.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Yeah, I do exactly the same thing. If it's perceived as a bad posting style, I'll refrain from doing it. My rationale was that in political stories especially I don't want to be perceived as trying to put a spin on the story in the OP, I prefer to wait a few posts.

Truthfully this tangent might be a fruitful nuts & bolts thread if this is something that bothers people because - at least speaking for myself - I was oblivious that this annoyed people. On the other hand, if these behaviors mostly happen in the OT, that might be better here.

If anyone is more guilty of this type of posting, it'd be me.

I've been accused of posting w/o sources, w/ too much sources, fisking too much, cherry picking articles, not transcribing the whole article...etc... *shrug*

Seems like people have different expectations of what an OT forum should be.

The one thing I've tried to do, is not spam multiple threads. I think it's better to keep it within the existing threads, even if the subject matter may deviate a bit.

It's why I have that "political junkie" bucket...

Or, my favorite soap box, anything related to Benghazi... I'd posted it in the most recent thread (even resurrect the thread) so that the anyone else can easily get the back story/previous debate topic w/o rehashing it in a different thread.

But, back on topic: So in a country of 300+ million citizen, is it strange that I don't think it's a big deal that 6.5 million SS numbers seems fraudulant? That's what... 2% ish of the entire SS accounts that are suspiciously fraudulent? That's pretty damn good if you ask me...

I think the more important ratio is what chunk of SS accounts getting collected from do those 6.5 million represent. That's a more per tenant number.

 kronk wrote:
If someone posts a link and a story and doesn't at least post their point of view on it, I'm far less likely to waist my time sharing my point of view with a post.

"Start us off or GTFO!" - Abe Lincoln

Personally, I want to read what the OP thinks as well, in every case.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

As I have said before, if it is on a topic that I am unfamiliar with, such as this very one, I am more content to read the replies of others to fill in gaps in my knowledge.

Then why are you wasting server cycles starting a thread here, and not just reading the comments on the original article?

It seems to be a decent idea to auto lock threads where the OP can't even be bothered to have an idea of why a topic merits discussion, and just isn't trying to slam on an outrage button.

 Portugal Jones wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

As I have said before, if it is on a topic that I am unfamiliar with, such as this very one, I am more content to read the replies of others to fill in gaps in my knowledge.

Then why are you wasting server cycles starting a thread here, and not just reading the comments on the original article?

It seems to be a decent idea to auto lock threads where the OP can't even be bothered to have an idea of why a topic merits discussion, and just isn't trying to slam on an outrage button.

Because however bad the Dakka OT will ever get, it is a bastion of civility and brilliance compared to the comment section of any article.

It seems to be a decent idea to auto lock threads where the OP can't even be bothered to have an idea of why a topic merits discussion, and just isn't trying to slam on an outrage button.

If he posted the link and wrote something like "OBAMA WILL NOT LET THEM CLOSE THOSE ACCOUNTS BECAUSE LIBERALS ARE USING THEM FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS WHO WILL VOTE FOR THEM" with it, then it would have been a slam on an outrage button.

I'm one of the designated liberals on this board, who often disagrees with OP on many things I might add, but nothing in the opening post of this thread screams "outrage button".

 d-usa wrote:

 Portugal Jones wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

As I have said before, if it is on a topic that I am unfamiliar with, such as this very one, I am more content to read the replies of others to fill in gaps in my knowledge.

Then why are you wasting server cycles starting a thread here, and not just reading the comments on the original article?

It seems to be a decent idea to auto lock threads where the OP can't even be bothered to have an idea of why a topic merits discussion, and just isn't trying to slam on an outrage button.

Because however bad the Dakka OT will ever get, it is a bastion of civility and brilliance compared to the comment section of any article.

Ain't that the truth.

 whembly wrote:
But, back on topic: So in a country of 300+ million citizen, is it strange that I don't think it's a big deal that 6.5 million SS numbers seems fraudulant? That's what... 2% ish of the entire SS accounts that are suspiciously fraudulent? That's pretty damn good if you ask me...

Having 2% of numbers that are this obviously wrong, through a test as simple as listing the age of all recipients is indicative of there being a whole lot more problems in the control of the database.

Although its worth noting the numbers aren’t fraudulent, nor is there evidence that any more than a handful were ever used in fraud. In most cases a government process somewhere failed when a person died, and the number has sat idle ever since.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Pyramid schemes are always doomed to fail. The problem with having the govt run a pyramid scheme as vast as Social Security is that you get so many voters collecting payouts that the elected politicians that are the ones that have to overhaul or disband the program are afraid to touch it because they don't want to lose an election over it.

The term pyramid scheme has an actual, real world meaning. It is a specific scam based around members being paid based on their ability to enrol more members (who in turn are brought in to the scheme based on the appeal of making money by drawing in more members). You can’t just call everything a pyramid scheme if you don’t like it.

SS is a defined benefit scheme. That means what you receive is drawn from the overall pool of funds based on a system independent of how well the fund has invested your money (or whether it invested it at all). Such schemes have an inherent instability as if they start paying out to people more than they paid in, then there’s less money to future future payments and so on. But that does not in any way make it a pyramid scheme.

 Grey Templar wrote:
. That's a more per tenant number.

I'm always glad to see someone else also getting screwed by phone speech-to-text. So handy, so unreliable.

The hazards of mobile devices.

I use it in clash of clans and more than once I decided "good enough" and sent some vaguely comprehensible message.

 Portugal Jones wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

As I have said before, if it is on a topic that I am unfamiliar with, such as this very one, I am more content to read the replies of others to fill in gaps in my knowledge.

Then why are you wasting server cycles starting a thread here, and not just reading the comments on the original article?

It seems to be a decent idea to auto lock threads where the OP can't even be bothered to have an idea of why a topic merits discussion, and just isn't trying to slam on an outrage button.

This is a policy on another forum I frequent, and I feel it's a valuable one. Frankly, I don't think anyone's opening opinion is going to so thoroughly 'taint' a conversation as to render the thread permanently damaged.

And not presenting an opinion can be plenty damaging to the conversation, as those who decide to participate are left to simply guess why this matter is worthy of merit.

If it's important enough to talk about, surely one can share why it's worth talking about without presenting so much dripping bias as to remove all dissent or opposing opinion?

I'm with Alpharius on this meta-topic. If an article is worth sharing, don't make us guess why it's worth sharing. If it's so self evident, then it shouldn't be hard to fill in with context, opinion and tasty tasty bias... gak I mean further information.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
But, back on topic: So in a country of 300+ million citizen, is it strange that I don't think it's a big deal that 6.5 million SS numbers seems fraudulant? That's what... 2% ish of the entire SS accounts that are suspiciously fraudulent? That's pretty damn good if you ask me...

Having 2% of numbers that are this obviously wrong, through a test as simple as listing the age of all recipients is indicative of there being a whole lot more problems in the control of the database.

Although its worth noting the numbers aren’t fraudulent, nor is there evidence that any more than a handful were ever used in fraud. In most cases a government process somewhere failed when a person died, and the number has sat idle ever since.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Pyramid schemes are always doomed to fail. The problem with having the govt run a pyramid scheme as vast as Social Security is that you get so many voters collecting payouts that the elected politicians that are the ones that have to overhaul or disband the program are afraid to touch it because they don't want to lose an election over it.

The term pyramid scheme has an actual, real world meaning. It is a specific scam based around members being paid based on their ability to enrol more members (who in turn are brought in to the scheme based on the appeal of making money by drawing in more members). You can’t just call everything a pyramid scheme if you don’t like it.

SS is a defined benefit scheme. That means what you receive is drawn from the overall pool of funds based on a system independent of how well the fund has invested your money (or whether it invested it at all). Such schemes have an inherent instability as if they start paying out to people more than they paid in, then there’s less money to future future payments and so on. But that does not in any way make it a pyramid scheme.

Dude, SS is a pyramid scheme. The federal govt doesn't invest the SS money taken out of my paycheck every two weeks. The federal govt doesn't put the SS money taken from my checks in a savings account either. What the govt does is take the SS money from my check and use it to make payments to people on SS like my grandparents. When I am in my 60s or 70s or however old I'll have to be to collect the amount I get won't be determined by how much I paid in because the money I paid in was already spent on payments. When or if I collect SS the solvency of the program and the amount I receive will be determined by the amount of current workers paying into SS because that is where the money comes from. Given the current trend of a shrinking labor force that is unlikely to reverse given the inevitable advance of technology and globalization I am unlikely to ever get back from SS an amount even close to equal what I put in because there won't be enough workers paying into the system to cover the cost of the payouts to retirees.

When the only way to make promised payments is by getting new workers to pay in money it's a pyramid scheme. As the labor force shrinks SS funding shrinks and payouts shrink.

Indeed. SS fits every definition of a pyramid scheme. Except its being organized by the government and like any pyramid scheme it will eventually fall apart. Especially since it will eventually have far fewer people paying in than are trying to draw.

A cursory google'ing for "social security pyramid scheme"

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2014/sep/24/carlos-curbelo/nod-rick-perry-carlos-curbelo-calls-social-securit/

Mitchell Zuckoff, a Boston University journalism professor who has written a book on Ponzi, noted three critical dissimilarities between Social Security and a Ponzi scheme. We will summarize Zuckoff’s comments from an earlier fact-check:

• "First, in the case of Social Security, no one is being misled," Zuckoff wrote in a January 2009 article in Fortune. "Social Security is exactly what it claims to be: A mandatory transfer payment system under which current workers are taxed on their incomes to pay benefits, with no promises of huge returns."

• Second, he wrote, "A Ponzi scheme is unsustainable because the number of potential investors is eventually exhausted." While Social Security faces a huge burden due to retiring Baby Boomers, it can be and has been tweaked, and "the government could change benefit formulas or take other steps, like increasing taxes, to keep the system from failing."

• Third, Zuckoff wrote, "Social Security is morally the polar opposite of a Ponzi scheme. ... At the height of the Great Depression, our society (see 'Social') resolved to create a safety net (see 'Security') in the form of a social insurance policy that would pay modest benefits to retirees, the disabled and the survivors of deceased workers. By design, that means a certain amount of wealth transfer, with richer workers subsidizing poorer ones. That might rankle, but it's not fraud."

Doesn't sound much like a Pyramid Scheme at all.

And I'm pretty sure I've heard several people note that simply removing the cap on wealthier individuals (apparently you don't pay in past a certain amount? I'm not American so this isn't exactly something I've spent a lot of time studying, though the matter has come up) would basically make it permanently solvent?

Though fixing it is another issue altogether. The surge of 'omg ponzi scheme' seemed a bit hyperbolic so I went looking, and that's what I found.

While there is definitely a difference in intention and presentation, the mechanics of social security are almost identical. And it has the same reason for failure, not enough people paying into the system to sustain it.

Social Security can be changed of course, but so could a Pyramid Scheme.


Social Security should be changed to where the money you pay in is what you get out. Make it a savings account instead of an unsustainable "pay it backward" system.

The way modern society is shifting is towards having relatively the same number of people at every life stage as at every other. Not the pyramid shaped distribution of a growing population.

Not without a pandemic, dinosaur killer or another world war, anyway.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Dude, SS is a pyramid scheme.

As I already said; "The term pyramid scheme has an actual, real world meaning. It is a specific scam based around members being paid based on their ability to enrol more members”.

The federal govt doesn't invest the SS money taken out of my paycheck every two weeks.

As I already said; “(or whether it invested it at all)”.

When I am in my 60s or 70s or however old I'll have to be to collect the amount I get won't be determined by how much I paid in because the money I paid in was already spent on payments.

As I already said; “That means what you receive is drawn from the overall pool of funds based on a system independent of how well the fund has invested your money”.

When or if I collect SS the solvency of the program and the amount I receive will be determined by the amount of current workers paying into SS because that is where the money comes from.

Nope, that’s completely wrong. What you are paid is entirely independent of the funds in the system or how much is being paid in when you retire. What you are paid when you cash out is a formula driven system based on your income.

When the only way to make promised payments is by getting new workers to pay in money it's a pyramid scheme. As the labor force shrinks SS funding shrinks and payouts shrink.

If the scheme was run by an independent body then you’d have point, as the problems you mention would eventually bankrupt the scheme. But given SS is underwritten by the Federal government, this means that as payments out exceed payments in, you just get a flow from government to SS.

That’s probably where you and lots of others get confused about SS – thinking about SS in isolation of the Federal Government. But the thing to remember is that the separation of SS and the Federal Government is entirely notional – the money you pay in is only separate to other flows in to the Federal government in a formal accounting sense. In reality money flows back and forth between SS and the Federal Government depending on the surplus or deficit in SS in any given year.

Right now SS brings in about a trillion a year, and pays out about $850 billion. The extra $150 billion is, basically, banked by government, reducing its deficit. As the baby boomers retire, SS payments will increase and the flow to government will first decline, then eventually become a flow to SS and out of government. This will be a serious drag on Federal finances, but it won’t, it can’t stop SS payments to individuals from happening.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed. SS fits every definition of a pyramid scheme. Except its being organized by the government and like any pyramid scheme it will eventually fall apart. Especially since it will eventually have far fewer people paying in than are trying to draw.

Except, you know, the actual definition of a pyramid scheme. The one in which members are drawn in to the scheme based on money they will receive based on drawing in more members themselves. That’s an actual definition with a great deal of importance in the finance law, because pyramid schemes are both terrible investments and straight up illegal.

You don’t just get to call something a pyramid scheme because you don’t like it.

Alright fine, it has all the mechanical aspects of a pyramid scheme.

So a person with 5 kids gets more Social Security than a person with 2 kids?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Alright fine, it has all the mechanical aspects of a pyramid scheme.

No, because in a pyramid scheme the only way you get paid is by bringing in new members, or when members you've already brought in attract new members. If SS was such a system, then membership would be voluntary, and future payments would be conditional on how many new members the person managed to bring in to the system over their lives.

You know what social security is actually mechanically the same as – a pension*. People are required to pay money that is in effect used to pay current pensions (whether the payments are drawn out of consolidated tax revenue or separately recorded as SS, the money transfer is the same). Meanwhile people who fit certain categories (aged, disabled etc), are paid by the system.

Whether you call this a pension or social security, whatever excess of income over payments is absorbed in to the government’s budget, while a shortfall of income compared to payments is similarly absorbed in to the greater government budget.


* There is an important difference in that a pension doesn’t vary based on how much tax you paid in over your life, whereas the formula for SS is based around your contributions. That’s why I said earlier that SS was a defined benefit scheme, because that is literally what it is. A defined benefit scheme is one where your benefits on leaving the system are defined ahead of time – ie an company pension that says ‘put in x% of your income and you will get a pension of y when you retire’. These schemes are inherently unstable, as either poor returns on investments or the company being unwilling or unable to top up the asset pool can see the whole thing tip over. But if such schemes are underwritten by government, the instability is gone.