609
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 Dec 2024
609 points (99.5% liked)
World News
32523 readers
923 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
This misunderstanding is on your side. There is a method of funding pensions refered to as pay as you go (PAYG).
This is exactly how many unfunded, state sponsored pension schemes function. No pot of money exists. Only the ability to collect taxes.
This is true for private pension schemes run by companies and individual pension schemes. Funded pension schemes are (usually) not ponzis.
State pension plans are primarily funded (in order of what comprises the most) by 1) the government 2) investments and 3) employee contributions.
Pay as you go is about employee contributions, which is typically the smallest pot being contributed. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
The UK State Pension is unfunded, which means that its obligations are not underpinned by an actual fund or funds. Such schemes are often referred to as “Pay As You Go” (PAYG). The pension payments made by the government for unfunded pensions are financed on an ongoing basis from National Insurance contributions and general taxation.
That’s not a fucking Ponzi scheme dude! It’s right there in your own comment!
Early ~~investors~~ pensioners are paid off with money put in by later ones.
Sounds like a ponzi to me.
It can sound like someone’s whistling Dixie if you want to claim that, it doesn’t make it true.
Your misunderstanding of the process and confusion with private pensions doesn't make it false.
PAYG funded State pensions fit the definition of a ponzi. Therefore they are a ponzi. The fact it is government approved and transparent does not negate the fact that current investors are directly paying early investors.
It has two sources of funding (taxes being the second) and there isn’t a middle man skimming a cut while paying older participants simply with new participants’ money while claiming their money is invested to generate money to pay them all out. The entire point of a Ponzi scheme is you are pretending there is money being generated that isn’t, you are just using new victims money for as long as possible until the music stops. They literally make up numbers to cover their tracks. It’s a fraudulent enterprise by design.
It is not a Ponzi scheme. It is literally not a Ponzi scheme by definition. You are making up your own rules and definitions because of how it feels to you. Do I think it is flawed and not a great way of handling these funds if you want them to be steady in the longterm? Absolutely. But it is not a Ponzi scheme.
I’m done man.
Taxes is the same source of funding. Workers.
Er. The government.
Exactly. State Pensions are promised but there is no money held aside for them.
I've already given you the Ponzi literature, and shown that PAYG pensions satisfy the description.
Cos, like your PAYG error, you just can't admit being wrong.