bratticus wrote:Evidence?
Are you serious? It's self-evident. What do you call a scheme that doesn't invest in anything but instead relies on an ever-larger base of "investors" to pay off those who entered the scheme early on? Classic Ponzi. SS is worse than the Madoff Ponzi because unlike those greedy saps who voluntarily invested with Madoff we are
forced to invest. Those working now pay a larger percentage of income into SS than past investors. Worst of all, those of us on the younger side will be forced by political reality to pay an increasingly greater percentage to keep the scheme going as long as possible (thanks AARP!), knowing full well that we will never see a cent of our money back.
I want off this shakedown ride!
Ida Mae Fuller, top of the SS Ponzi:
Social Security History
"Ida May Fuller worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits."
Just like the first Madoff investors, if you got in early it was the best thing since sliced bread. As long as there is an ever-increasing base of investors further down the pyramid all is well. However:
SS worker to retiree ratios
The ratio is currently 3.3 and Baby Boomers are now beginning to retire. Population demographics alone will collapse the SS Ponzi, never mind those minor details like the economic problem and peak oil.
The birds shall re-inherit the earth.
"All crows under heaven are black."