Elon Musk on Joe Rogan calls Social Security a Ponzi scheme The CEO of companies including Tesla and SpaceX argued that the U.S. "better fix" its entitlement systems because birth rates have fallen and post-retirement life expectancy has increased.
How bout we confiscate all of Elon's wealth to pay for it. You know, if he's really that concerned about what is going on in someone else's country. You know what's a Ponzi scheme? Late stage capitalism.
What’s really a Ponzi scheme is the “Crypto Reserve” that Trump is proposing to drive up Crypto prices and enrich his friends and donors.
the U.S. "better fix" its entitlement systems because birth rates have fallen and post-retirement life expectancy has increased - MUSK How does providing a $4 trillion tax cut, mostly to the wealthy, fix this? And how does clamping down on immigration solve this problem? Regarding falling birth rates, how about offering tax incentives for having more kids or encouraging immigration? With increasing post-retirement life expectancy, how about raising payroll taxes or increasing the retirement age? Would you prefer more immigration, increasing the retirement age, or reducing Social Security payouts? Would you prefer offering tax incentives for having more kids or increasing payroll taxes? Would you prefer removing or increasing the payroll tax cap (~$160k for Social Security), increasing payroll taxes, or increasing immigration? ...
Funny, I was thinking the other day Elon could give every family in the USA a million dollars and still have a ton leftover. Do it Elon.
This is Leon's fear. Leon does not want to pay more taxes, so that the unwashed masses can retire and live with dignity.
Social security is a ponzi scheme, meanwhile let's put all of you tax dollars into memecoins is about as on-brand as these mother****ers get.
Social security is gonna run dry...that is a fact. Should we do something to address that....no. Rich people need tax cuts, it's urgent for this country and a priority. All these scummy poor people need to start dying younger and having kids they can't afford. We also need to make sure to cut off all social safety nets for when poor people have kids (that money has to go to the rich). We don't need people making something of themselves...we need wage slaves. This is literally and factually what republicans want....it is revolting. We need more kids...and we are gonna make absolutely sure you have as few tools available to raise them
Tax incentives may not drive more people to have children. I suspect that most people do not think about tax incentives when deciding to have kids. These are the most popular suggestions. Raising payroll taxes include both raising the tax rate and raising the wage base limit (currently $176,100). Increasing the retirement age is problematic, especially anyone near their current "full" retirement age. Anyone who has made impactful financial decisions (like buying/selling their home) base on their full retirement age may be forced to work more years on no notice. Another consideration is that some people retire at 62 since they are physically unable to perform their manual labor job or since they were layed off in their mid 50+ and can not find employment. Upping the retirement age will not change their behavior.
So basically liquidate Tesla and SpaceX, and let the Chinese be the leader in autos and space. Oh and while you also liquidate the wealthiest man, you also cause a cascading effect through the entire market. Tell me you don't understand economics without telling me. How many billions has SpaceX saved this country? Who cares right? As long as we punish the man you disagree with
Increasing the retirement age is okay (with a phase-in period) if it follows that people are not just living longer, but are healthier - IOW, they are capable of working longer. The most obvious, on-the-fly, off-the-top-of-my-head solution to me is to increase legal immigration and raise the wage base limit.
The boomers had it easy yet they complained the most, the dine and dash era. House prices are 10x. Jobs don't offer pensions anymore or raises. Health insurance is 10x. Car insurance is 3x. Food is 5x.
Social Security will run dry. No, it won't run dry, but it is projected to lack enough funds to pay out 100% of benefits to retirees starting around 2035 (~10 years from now). The next 2–3 administrations, along with Congress, will determine whether Social Security is stabilized for the long term. Not the time to gift $4 trillion toward the wealthy while ignoring Social Security. https://www.pgpf.org/article/the-ra...is-at-a-low-and-projected-to-decline-further/ Why is the Ratio Declining? There are a few reasons why the ratio of workers to beneficiaries has been declining — most notably changes in fertility, immigration, and age of the population. Around the end of the baby boom in 1960, the average number of children born to a woman was 3.6; by 2020, that number had declined to 1.6. The decline in fertility rate means that the working generation is getting smaller relative to the generation receiving benefits. Immigration also plays a role in the population landscape because immigrants tend to be younger, have higher fertility rates, and participate in the workforce. However, the rate of immigration to the United States has been declining in recent years. Simultaneously, more Americans are getting older and living longer. How Can Social Security Be Sustained? There are some variations as to what researchers believe the minimum ratio of workers to beneficiaries should be — ranging from 2.8 to 3.3 — but all analyses warn that its current decline signals an unstable source of funding for Social Security. While it is more difficult to change the components of the ratio itself, the program could be reformed to ensure a sustainable future. The good news is that there are many available solutions to ensure Social Security’s solvency: raising the retirement age, decreasing the program’s benefits, or increasing revenues dedicated to the program; pursuing all in combination would likely provide the most lasting and least painful adjustment for the future. For example, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that if the federal retirement age was raised to 70, it would decrease federal outlays by $72 billion over the next several years (and by growing amounts thereafter). An example of a way to reduce benefits would be to link payments to average prices rather than lifetime earnings — CBO estimates that change would reduce outlays by $69 billion over a 10-year period. Lawmakers could also raise the tax rate or adjust the cap on income subject to payroll taxes. For instance, the current maximum taxable amount is $147,000, but CBO estimates that subjecting earnings above $250,000 to the payroll tax would raise more than $1 trillion in revenues over a 10-year period. Social Security is the largest single line item in the budget and a key driver of the national debt; it is also an essential component of our economy and society. Regardless of what policies lawmakers choose, if reforms are not enacted soon, recipients could see a large decrease in their benefits. Because millions of people depend on Social Security, lawmakers need to ensure that benefit payments are adequate for individual financial security, but also sustainable to ensure the program’s solvency.
They were the last generation to come of age in an least quasi sound money system. They weren't the ones who got rid of it, but they sure as **** didn't do anything to make the situation better. Now they're white knuckling onto power because they know they ****ed everything up and don't want that legacy laid bare for what it really is. Greed, incompetence, and cowardice.
