Oh you can't predict it, but somehow you can assume the budget of the US government will be in the quadrillions?

Their predictions are impossible, but your handwaving is sufficient. Got it.

The assumption is current levels, and it is only liabilities, as in entitlements.

>Sure, that's a lot of money and the number can also be true. However,that's weighted against quadrillions of government income.

No it isn't. It's *unfunded* liabilities. It's taking into account current government income trends. It's speaking to insolvent programs for people *who current exist* for which there is no funding to speak of in the future.

Given that isn't the case for any retirement plan, SS included, no.

No, all killing of innocent people is murder.

There are degrees of murder, but involuntary manslaughter is both illegal and immoral.

To say it's inferred by design is to say it's designed to be flawed.

They're saying it's murder by analogy.

Murder is the immoral killing of someone, and are implying it should be illegal.

It was not designed for the tax rate to slowly increase over time.

No they want to persuade people it's immoral because murder is.

I'm making the argument that SS is inherently flawed for the same reason Ponzi schemes are: they're structured in an unsustainable way.

People arguing the police murder innocent civilians all the time. They are using the word murder by analogy.

The same goes for theft when tax dollars aren't used for what people want them to.

Except it isn't a false analogy simply because it doesn't have all the qualities of a Ponzi scheme.

Thinking analogies are lazy is misunderstanding their purpose. Analogies are the very means of illustrating a concept by means of comparison.

Ponzi schemes are inherently unsustainable, but they're not inherently forced.

I can have objectives to it on forced participation grounds too, but I wouldn't call it a ponzi scheme to do so.

Which fallacy would that be?

It's not a material difference, because the problematic element I'm referring to is unsustainability, not whether it's fraudulent or not.

It's like saying "well the police unjustifiably killing someone isnt murder because they have qualified immunity and murder means an unlawful killing", completely ignoring what informs what the definition of murder is.

It's just sophistry.

Analogies allow for differences.

Ponzi schemes are just as unsustainable even when transparent. It's just harder to get people to buy in.

Unless you force them to.

>But everybody knows why it made the trade off and it wasn’t intentionally deceptive

No, it was sold as individual workers contributing to their retirement later on, which isn't how it works.

>Is the intention of social security to invest money? Is it being intentionally deceptive paying out benefits from tax revenue?

It's *not a progressive redistribution program either*.

>Obviously. Ponzi schemes are fraudulent. Social security isn’t fraudulent

That's a legal distinction, not a structural one.

>That’s not fraudulent.

Yeah it's just a ponzi scheme in all but name.

Do you not see how you are fixated on the part that isn't required of a ponzi scheme, and ignoring the very argument being made that it is structured by one? You are wishing to maintain a rhetorical air about it, and avoid the actual argument.

Economic bubbles aren't fraudulent either, but they're *also ponzi schemes*

No, it's a ponzi scheme. Calling it a tradeoff by society doesn't preclude it from being a ponzi scheme.

If it took your money and actually invested it in something, then I wouldn't call it a ponzi scheme.

I take issue with forced participation, but that doesn't mean all forced participations are ponzi schemes.

Think of it this way: if it's not a ponzi scheme, then you wouldn't need to increase the rate or the cap to keep it solvent.

No need to be deceptive when you're forcing people to contribute, and the degree of contribution can be manipulated well after "investors" have committed to a particular contribution.

All you have to do is say it's for their own good.

The analogy is the way it's structured. Along that dimension of comparison it's perfectly apt.

Economic bubbles are a form of ponzi schemes too in the way they are structured.

Social security is a ponzi scheme in all the important ways that it make it so. They are unsustainable because they don't actually produce anything.

No it doesn't. It implies that no real investment is made, and the returns to old investors are just the injection from new "investors"

I'm suggesting a system that is effectively a ponzi scheme probably isn't the most sustainable.

Then again other countries have higher retirement ages and much hire contribution rates for pensions(as in the 20+%, with Italy being at 33%), so maybe the problem is the US trying to get something from far less than other more sustainable systems.

Which you till pay taxes on.

This, combined with the numerous bureaucrats and tech professionals who are their donors is why that donut hole was selected.

Ultimately it's telling they don't just try to lift the cap entirely.

Hmm, maybe forcing people to pay into a system they might not survive to benefit from was a bad idea.

The fact you don't pay payroll taxes on something that isn't payroll is the point.

You seem to be confusing campaign funding with income.

Solvency dwindles if you're going to expand benefits and lower the retirement age.

>use a better CPI index.

Redundancy aside, I don't know what that means.

I think you're confusing unfunded liabilities with current debt.

Sweden privatized its social security decades ago.

I mean Sweden privatized its SS back in the 90s too.

And yet there are hundreds of trillions of unfunded liabilities, and not just for SS.

The system needs reform, not kicking the can 2 generations down the road.

How convenient that Congress makes 170 to 230K a year.