Response to Social Security’s Go-Broke Date

[Hafar1014]

You don't understand what a Ponzi Scheme is then. You have made a classic fallacy of false equivalency error.




How Social Security is different
While Social Security does rely on current workers’ payroll taxes to fund retirees, it’s:

• Legal and transparent: It’s a government-run program with oversight and public accounting.
• Adjustable: Congress can change tax rates, benefit formulas, or retirement ages to keep it solvent.
• Not profit-driven: It doesn’t promise unrealistic returns or enrich a central figure like a Ponzi scheme does.

Why the confusion?
Some critics argue that because Social Security needs a steady stream of new workers to fund retirees, it resembles a Ponzi structure. But that’s more of a metaphor than a literal comparison. The program’s challenges — like an aging population and longer life expectancies — are real, but solvable through policy changes.

So while it may share some superficial traits with a Ponzi scheme, calling it one is more rhetorical than factual. Want to explore how Social Security could be reformed or what its future looks like?

You dont know what Ponzi is

Ponzi is new money pays old obligations with no internal investment to offset future increases in expenses.

SS is new money pays old obligations with no internal investment to offset future increases in expenses.
Your distinctions have no bearing on the financial similarity.

SS must increase taxes and reduce benefits to remain solvent. That taxes are already too high and benefits too low. Outflow will always be more than input unless you destroy its whole purpose. It will cost more then it pays

 

[HikerGuy83]

~~~~~~

US Reclaims An Absurd Amount Of Social Security ​

Payments To Dead People​

MSN

by Eugenia Lazaris

Doubts about Social Security have circulated for years, with claims running rampant about Social Security funding being in danger of running out to dead people receiving Social Security payments. As it turns out, at least one of those claims has turned out to be true and something is finally being done about it.
On January 15th, 2025, the U.S. Department of Treasury, the government department which oversees federal finances by collecting taxes, managing public debt, and enforcing tax and finance laws, issued a press release announcing that it had successfully prevented and recovered $31 million in Social Security payments to deceased individuals. The payments were identified as both fraudulent payments and improperly issued payments and were discovered as part of a 5-month pilot program between the Treasury Department and the Social Security Administration (SSA) working with what is known as Social Security's Full Death Master File.
~Snip~
This is the most complete and comprehensive record of its kind and was made available to the U.S. Department of Treasury as part of this pilot program as a result of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, This act granted access for a period of three years starting in December of 2023 and ending in December of 2026.
Read more:

US Reclaims An Absurd Amount Of Social Security Payments To Dead People - Money Digest

Rumors of Social Security payments being issued to dead people have circulate for years, and it turns out that there was in fact an issue.

www.moneydigest.com

Commentary and response:
So you claim it's a lie, yet MSN and other sources claim differently.
One could claim that the reason these violations and crimes have occurred is due to the Democrats in Congress insisting that investigation and changes to Social Security not occur.
This is just a small amount of the total fraud. I will not applaud a government agency for doing part of the job. 13.6 billion were paid out in fraudulent claims in 2022.
The big problem lies in the fraud we know that goes on within the Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP and other welfare Programs.
All of which Democrats protect vehemently. You have to wonder Why? Do they benefit from the scams and fraud? Follow the money.
By the way as a Democrat how many gold bars do you hide in your suit pockets hanging in your closet?

31 million is chump change compared to the numbers associated with SS.

Unless they can do this about 1000 times over, it's not where we need to focus.

 

[leftwinger]

Launch another virus targeted into retirement homes. Juice up the respirators again. Kill off 1 million but no visitors allowed. Evidently they will do anything for money and power.//

1 million at $3K per month is $36B per yr saved. Every little bit helps.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Prove me wrong Ponzi a model where new money pays old obligations with no internal investment to offset future increases in expenses.

SS a model where new money pays old obligations with no internal investment to offset future increases in expenses.
See the difference.

Lets see if you can prove me wrong

Already proved Hafar wrong.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Your fallacy of false equivalency does account for the difference of what SS is.

You would fail Econ 101.

 

[Mr Natural]

Eliminate the earnings cap. Problem solved.

 

[kyzr]

You dont know what Ponzi is, Ponzi is new money pays old obligations with no internal investment to offset future increases in expenses.

SS is new money pays old obligations with no internal investment to offset future increases in expenses.
Your distinctions have no bearing on the financial similarity.

SS must increase taxes and reduce benefits to remain solvent. That taxes are already too high and benefits too low. Outflow will always be more than input unless you destroy its whole purpose. It will cost more then it pays

You are wrong.

If SS is not "fixed" outlays will equal inputs.

That means that SS checks would be about 83% of promised benefits.
"If Social Security is not fixed, benefits are projected to be reduced to about 83% of the scheduled amount starting in 2035, which could lead to significant financial challenges for beneficiaries. This reduction is due to the depletion of the trust fund that supports these benefits unless Congress takes action to address the funding shortfall."

 

[Polishprince]

Eliminate the earnings cap. Problem solved.

Libs will whine big-time, as corporations will be forced to pay CEO's a lot more money so they can pay the extra money and have to lower other salaries or raise taxes to make up for it.

You can't just change one thing and expect everything else to remain the same.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

What is the fiscal error in calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme?

So the fiscal error lies in equating a dynamic, adjustable public program with a rigid, fraudulent scam. It oversimplifies the economics and ignores the tools available to keep Social Security viable.

Calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme isn’t just misleading — it’s fiscally inaccurate in several key ways. Here's why that comparison breaks down from a financial standpoint:

1. Lack of Fraudulent Intent
A Ponzi scheme is inherently deceptive, designed to enrich its creator by promising unrealistic returns. Social Security, by contrast, is:

• A legally mandated public program
• Transparent in its operations
• Subject to oversight and reform mechanisms

2. Solvency Through Policy Tools
Ponzi schemes collapse when new investors dry up. Social Security, while facing demographic pressures, can be stabilized through:

• • Adjustments to payroll taxes
  • Changes to retirement age or benefits
  • 
    
  • Trust fund reserves and legislative action
  • 
    
  • 
• 3. Misunderstanding the Pay-As-You-Go Model
  Critics often cite early beneficiaries receiving more than they paid in — like Ida May Fuller, who paid $24.75 in taxes and received nearly $23,000 in benefits. But this reflects the program’s design, not fraud. It’s a generational transfer system, not a personal investment account.
  4. Mischaracterizing Fiscal Sustainability
  Labeling Social Security a Ponzi scheme implies inevitable collapse. In reality:
  
  • The system has long-term challenges, but not insolvency by default
  • 
    
  • The Congressional Budget Office estimates that benefits could be reduced or taxes increased to maintain balance
• • Adjustments to payroll taxes
  • Changes to retirement age or benefits
  • Trust fund reserves and legislative action
  • 3. Misunderstanding the Pay-As-You-Go ModelCritics often cite early beneficiaries receiving more than they paid in — like Ida May Fuller, who paid $24.75 in taxes and received nearly $23,000 in benefits. But this reflects the program’s design, not fraud. It’s a generational transfer system, not a personal investment account.
  
  4. Mischaracterizing Fiscal Sustainability
  Labeling Social Security a Ponzi scheme implies inevitable collapse. In reality:
  
  • The system has long-term challenges, but not insolvency by default
  • The Congressional Budget Office estimates that benefits could be reduced or taxes increased to maintain balance

politifact.com
poynter.org
cato.org

 

[Hafar1014]

You are wrong.

If SS is not "fixed" outlays will equal inputs.

That means that SS checks would be about 83% of promised benefits.
"If Social Security is not fixed, benefits are projected to be reduced to about 83% of the scheduled amount starting in 2035, which could lead to significant financial challenges for beneficiaries. This reduction is due to the depletion of the trust fund that supports these benefits unless Congress takes action to address the funding shortfall."

The outlays increase and the input does not unless there is tax increase or benefit reduction. There is no trust fund its drawer with IOUs. You means the surplus that will go broke in 2035. Then what outlays exceed input. You have to raise the tax which is already over 14% or cut benefits which are equal to a 1% return. I can do better with a bank savings account. Then even if you raise the tax it will go broke again. Youre putting off the inevitable.
With no statutory reserve and investments to offset increased outlays you will go broke. Why people live longer, births are down, and its a ponzi

 

[Polishprince]

What is the fiscal error in calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme?

So the fiscal error lies in equating a dynamic, adjustable public program with a rigid, fraudulent scam. It oversimplifies the economics and ignores the tools available to keep Social Security viable.

Calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme isn’t just misleading — it’s fiscally inaccurate in several key ways. Here's why that comparison breaks down from a financial standpoint:

1. Lack of Fraudulent Intent
A Ponzi scheme is inherently deceptive, designed to enrich its creator by promising unrealistic returns. Social Security, by contrast, is:

• A legally mandated public program
• Transparent in its operations
• Subject to oversight and reform mechanisms

2. Solvency Through Policy Tools
Ponzi schemes collapse when new investors dry up. Social Security, while facing demographic pressures, can be stabilized through:

• • Adjustments to payroll taxes
  • Changes to retirement age or benefits
  • 
    
  • Trust fund reserves and legislative action
  • 
    
  • 
• 3. Misunderstanding the Pay-As-You-Go Model
  Critics often cite early beneficiaries receiving more than they paid in — like Ida May Fuller, who paid $24.75 in taxes and received nearly $23,000 in benefits. But this reflects the program’s design, not fraud. It’s a generational transfer system, not a personal investment account.
  4. Mischaracterizing Fiscal Sustainability
  Labeling Social Security a Ponzi scheme implies inevitable collapse. In reality:
  • The system has long-term challenges, but not insolvency by default
  • 
    
  • The Congressional Budget Office estimates that benefits could be reduced or taxes increased to maintain balance
• • Adjustments to payroll taxes
  • Changes to retirement age or benefits
  • Trust fund reserves and legislative action
  • 3. Misunderstanding the Pay-As-You-Go ModelCritics often cite early beneficiaries receiving more than they paid in — like Ida May Fuller, who paid $24.75 in taxes and received nearly $23,000 in benefits. But this reflects the program’s design, not fraud. It’s a generational transfer system, not a personal investment account.
  
  4. Mischaracterizing Fiscal Sustainability
  Labeling Social Security a Ponzi scheme implies inevitable collapse. In reality:
  • The system has long-term challenges, but not insolvency by default
  • The Congressional Budget Office estimates that benefits could be reduced or taxes increased to maintain balance

politifact.com
poynter.org
cato.org

There was fraudulent intent. Roosevelt knew that the program was unsustainable when he set it up and was lying like a rug when he promised contributions and the rate would never rise.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

There was fraudulent intent. Roosevelt knew that the program was unsustainable when he set it up and was lying like a rug when he promised contributions and the rate would never rise.

The only fraudulent intent is by you, Polishprince, to mischaracterize what SS is. The financing of it is very easy.

 

[Hafar1014]

There was fraudulent intent. Roosevelt knew that the program was unsustainable when he set it up and was lying like a rug when he promised contributions and the rate would never rise.

SS is a scam that makes you dependent on the government. By taxing you too much and returning too little. As a process it is identical to a ponzi. It works the same way

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

SS is a scam that makes you dependent on the government. By taxing you too much and returning too little. As a process it is identical to a ponzi. It works the same way

You keep writing, even when corrected appropriately, the same lies.

 

[Hafar1014]

You keep writing, even when corrected appropriately, the same lies.

You have been conned and made a fool of by the government and dont have the backbone to face it

 

[Hafar1014]

The only fraudulent intent is by you, Polishprince, to mischaracterize what SS is. The financing of it is very easy.

Since it will go broke even you admit that proves its insolvent. Then your solution is you put more in and get less out. Economics isnt your strong point.
What you also dont know is the government issues special treasuries for the surplus and spends it. They define it as cash when in facts its debt and that hides the actual size of the deficit. SS is a fraud in many ways

 

[22lcidw]

Here's the deal with Social Security and Medicare which I have pointed out a zillion times and no one has the guts to implement.

1935. The year Social Security was enacted. 5.4 percent of the population was 65 or older.

1965. The year Medicare was tacked on. 9 percent of the population was 65 or older.

The Present. 17.3 percent of the population is 65 or older.

A smaller and smaller percentage of the working population is supporting a larger and larger percentage. It is blazingly obvious this is unsustainable.

The Social Security/Medicare eligibility age must raised. There is no way around this.

In 1983, the Social Security age was raised to 67, but the cowards didn't set it to take full effect until this year. They didn't have the guts to make it effective during their tenures in Congress and face the wrath of the voters.

In 1983, life expectancy was 74.46 years.

Today, life expectancy is 78.4 years.

So life expectancy has increased by 4 years while the eligibility age has increased by only 2 years.

We need to raise the eligibility age to 70, and index it to 9 percent of the population to account for increases and decreases in population affecting the weight on the national treasury.

This is unavoidable. We are living longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer.

And before any of you say that some workers can't work until they are 70, keep in mind our labor today is far, far easier than the labor of 1935. Most people died before they became eligible. Social Security was intended for those who beat the actuarials.

Also, early retirements are allowed under our current system and can be carried forward.

You did not include the increases in social security taxes from employees and business owners. From 1 per cent to 15 per cent currently.

 

[Hafar1014]

You did not include the increases in social security taxes from employees and business owners. From 1 per cent to 15 per cent currently.

Self employed pay the whole 14.25 %.

 

[kyzr]

The outlays increase and the input does not unless there is tax increase or benefit reduction. There is no trust fund its drawer with IOUs. You means the surplus that will go broke in 2035. Then what outlays exceed input. You have to raise the tax which is already over 14% or cut benefits which are equal to a 1% return. I can do better with a bank savings account. Then even if you raise the tax it will go broke again. Youre putting off the inevitable. With no statutory reserve and investments to offset increased outlays you will go broke. Why people live longer, births are down, and its a ponzi

What part of outlays will equal income don't you understand?
That will equal approximately 83% of promised benefits according to the SSA

 

[g5000]

You did not include the increases in social security taxes from employees and business owners. From 1 per cent to 15 per cent currently.

That is a band-aid workaround because our politicians don't have the guts to do what needs to be done.

It is inevitable the retirement age will have to be increased, and the longer these cowards wait, the more painful things will get until then.