Summary

Elon Musk called Social Security a “Ponzi scheme” on “The Joe Rogan Experience,” claiming it’s unsustainable due to long-term obligations exceeding tax revenue.

Critics, including Sen. Bernie Sanders, accused him of pushing privatization to benefit the wealthy. Musk also made false claims about Social Security mispayments.

His comments come amid looming Social Security cuts and restructuring. The Social Security Administration warns of potential fund shortages by 2035.

Democrats advocate for raising the tax cap on high earners to strengthen the program.

  • skozzii@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Does he feel like way about all pension programs or just the ones he is trying to plunder?

  • crusa187@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    The 2025 earnings tax cap for social security is $176k.

    If those richest among us, like Elon who makes billions per year, had to pay social security tax on a larger percentage of their earnings, or on all of it like those of us making less than $176k annually, the system would easily be solvent in perpetuity. The only reason it’s potentially at risk is because rich assholes have lobbied successfully in order to not pay into it.

    • turnip@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      What is their counter argument, would it increase the velocity of money and inflation, raising interest rates for everyone and inhibiting economic growth? Or would it be that we’d need to raise capital gains taxes, which would cause US investment to flee?

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        The argument is it’s not a tax or insurance but a communal retirement fund meant to supplement private retirement benefits or keep the elderly out of poverty. It’s limited in what it pays out so your investment should be limited at the same place

        People who earn $176k get the highest benefit, and they don’t get anymore no matter how much more they earn. They’re not getting more so don’t think they should pay in more.

        I don’t know how the benefit is calculated but presumable if higher earners kick in more, the formula would need to change so it’s not all going back to them

        • crusa187@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          Here’s my counter-argument to that:

          Considering none of their companies or financial trusts would be worth anything without workers, I think we should cap the benefit at $176k and increase contributions to have no cap as a way to thank the workers. This would give people a good retirement to look forward to after a long career in service to the various institutions.

          Further, if some of them still have billions after 4 years of this updated social security investment policy, we should make being so illegal and kill off the billionaires by applying a wealth tax until they’re just regular old millionaires. This would fund the now desperately needed infrastructure projects to keep the country safe and modernized.

          It’s a free market so they’d be welcome to solely do business in Russia or the Cayman Islands or something, if they’d prefer.

  • turnip@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Didnt Reagan under a conservative government allow the money to be spent, in order to pay for the debt left over after the great society act?

    It therefore would now be a ponzi scheme, where past investors pay new investors, until the outflows outpace inflows and it fails.

    • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      No, what happened during the Reagan administration is that the government recognized that decades in the future, the predicted change in the age pyramid would mean more retirees and fewer workers to support them. So rather than slightly increasing SS taxes in the future to cover this, they started increasing SS taxes immediately and investing that overpayment in Treasury bonds (this is the origin of the Social Security “trust fund” which is routinely misrepresented as the entirely of the SS system). This SS trust fund money is primarily what allowed Reagan to run enormous deficits (“fiscal conservative” lol) without causing interest rates to spiral out of control.

      There is absolutely nothing about Social Security which is in any way like a Ponzi scheme. It is simply a pension plan applied to the whole country instead of just an individual company.

      • turnip@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Ah interesting, thanks for the correction. Though since treasuries are paid by the government is it not then still a ponzi scheme, in the fact the bonds must be redeemed to pay for shortfalls, in which case the government must tax the existing population to pay for the redeemed bond to fund the old?

        If we are looking at our existing scenario with the baby boomers I’d assume we must be close to being forced to liquidate, and taxes will rise on the young for the bond repayment?

        If they allowed people to opt out would it not be the case that as people opt out you’d need to raise taxes on the young as more people opted out, since none of the money actually still exists, cascading into an insolvent system just like how a standard ponzi scheme unwinds?

        • ChickenLadyLovesLife@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          Just forget about the “trust fund” because as I mentioned, it’s not central to the way the SS system works. Social Security is simply a system whereby a large base of workers pays taxes to fund the (modest) retirement of a much smaller number of retirees. These are rough numbers, but: the average man starts work at age 21 and retires at age 65 (meaning he pays into the system for 44 years); the average male retiree then dies at age 76 (meaning he collects SS benefits for 11 years). So on average, four workers pay SS taxes to support one retiree. The average SS benefit is $1,583 per month, which means the average worker needs to pay just $396 per month in SS taxes for the system to remain solvent indefinitely. The median annual salary in the US is $59,384 (or $4949 per month) which means the SS tax rate only needs to be 8% (it’s currently 6.2% because the trust fund is being dipped into). Any shortfall could be easily made good by 1) raising the tax rate, and/or 2) raising the cap on taxable income.

          This is why the “Ponzi scheme SS” meme is bullshit. A Ponzi scheme provides fake returns to investors by returning part of the money invested by new suckers; as soon as you run out of new suckers, the scheme collapses. Social Security does not in any way rely on perpetually finding new suckers, it only relies on the demographic reality of human beings having a much longer working life than retired life.

  • dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    I understand what he is saying. It kinda looks like one at first glance, because contributions from current workers go first to pay current retirees.

    But what he misses is that we did it that way on purpose. The end goal was to make Americans more secure as a country. Americans could work at their jobs and be confident that they would be taken care of in their old age by the younger generation as a whole, Americans taking care of each other. I understand that the money I pay in now is going to support my parents and their generation, and I really dont mind. We’ll see if these dimwits ruin it by the time I need it.

    Everything with these MAGA idiots is zero-sum. If they are paying money to anyone, they need to be the ones getting the benefits from it, otherwise it is a “scam”. The problem with zero-sum is that there always have to be winners and losers. And if the people in power are always the winners, what does that make us?

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      The existence of disability insurance (SSDI), in and of itself, is enough to refute this “ponzi scheme” bullshit.

      There are people who have never paid a cent into Social Security, yet receive benefits.

      Imagine that with an actual ponzi scheme… Instead of giving Peter’s money to Paul, you give it to Sally who’s paraplegic, can’t work, and has paid nothing into the fund.

    • lunarul@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      I understand what he is saying. It kinda looks like one at first glance, because contributions from current workers go first to pay current retirees.

      But that’s how private insurance and retirement plans work too. The only difference is that private ones also benefit some rich CEOs at the top who have a vested interest to not distribute the funds.

    • EndRedStateSubsidies@leminal.space
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      The entire stock market is basically a ponzi scheme.

      Push pensions, 401k, 529, HSA money into one spot and then rug the whole market every few years.

    • ThePowerOfGeek@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      He doesn’t know what almost anything really is, despite all the bullshit he spouts. He’s the human embodiment of the Dunning Kruger effect.

    • WraithGear@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Popular… except i have grown up being told that ss was something i paid into but would not be available for me.

  • Dogiedog64@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    You know what, if they destroy Social Security just because Musk said so, I have no doubt there will be blood. Too many people from too many demographics in too many places rely on it just to SURVIVE, let alone abuse it in any meaningful way.

    This would honestly be one of, if not the fastest ways to spark a civil war, outside of rolling troops into major cities and opening fire. Why? Because you’d suddenly have millions of people unable to feed themselves, in a country where there are significantly more guns than people, and they’d all have ample cause to march on DC.

    THAT SAID, I doubt Musk and Trump have thought of that, because they’re 2 drug-addled lunatics who do not and never have cared about long-term ramifications. I’m sure other Republicans are shitting themselves in fear right now, as the Dipshit Duo get ready to kill the Political Golden Goose, but none of them can speak up for fear of losing power.

    What a fucking mess.

    • lightnsfw@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yeah, that would be the last nail in the coffin of me ever being able to retire so I’d have nothing left to live for at that point and I would be able to dip into enough savings to make myself a problem.

  • gamer@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Joe Rogan is watched mostly by young people, many of which are also too young to realize that cutting social security means they’re going to spend a good chunk of their adult life taking care of their parents until they die. That means paying for their housing or living facility, or having them live with you.

    Reaching these young people to get this across to them is the tricky part.

  • tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    Elon Musk called Social Security a “Ponzi scheme” on “The Joe Rogan Experience,” claiming it’s unsustainable due to long-term obligations exceeding tax revenue.

    Being a Ponzi scheme requires fraud. In a Ponzi scheme, the fraudster fraudulently claims that an investor is making a larger return than he is, then – for a while – pays him back from future investments from other investors. It is intrinsically unsustainable.

    Social Security isn’t fraudulent. It states explicitly that people contributing to Social Security are providing the funds to people who are withdrawing from it. It may not be sustainable to maintain a fixed level of benefits at a fixed level of taxation if the fertility rate is declining, but the lack of sustainability isn’t what makes a Ponzi scheme a Ponzi scheme. It’s the presence of fraud, which does not exist for Social Security.

    I remember that the Social Security Administration website used to have a page up explicitly describing why it wasn’t a Ponzi scheme.

    • mkwt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      With social security, the pool of investors is the entire country’s population. This large size and government backing stabilises it. But the financials still rely on continuous population growth, forever, to work well.

      The key financial metric in social security is the ratio of pay-ins to pay-outs. For example, it could be 5 paying employees for every retiree. The social security scheme has some minimum, critical ratio that is needed to maintain the tax rates and benefit levels. And if that minimum is, say, 5:1 workers to older retirees, that implies a population in a state of exponential demographic growth.

      Right now, the US is propping up its lack of organic demographic growth with immigration, and accumulated trust fund savings from an earlier era. Japan had massive problems with its social security when its population stagnated.

      Notice, however, that the government of Japan did not just implode like a securities fraud. This is because governments are fundamentally not like private sector criminals running Ponzi schemes.

  • kokolores@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    The more news I read the more I think of judge dredd as the future for the USA.

    Corporate Takeover of Government

    Elon Musk and DOGE and the budget cuts, like a megacorp executive running essential public services for profit.

    Trump & Musk pushing privatization, bust like how corporations in Judge Dredd control everything from housing to law enforcement.

    Weakening Social Safety Nets

    Cutting Social Security, making healthcare deniable based on religious beliefs (Arkansas bill), reducing government services looks like pushing society toward a survival-of-the-fittest model to me.

    The rich live in luxury, while everyone else is left to fend for themselves like the division in Judge Dredd’s Mega-City One.

    Authoritarianism & the Rule of the Few

    Trump’s policies, Vance’s ideology, Musk’s influence, the US is shifting toward rule by billionaires and strongmen, bypassing democratic institutions.

    The Rise of Private Justice & Armed Control

    Musk’s obsession with tech-based policing & surveillance (like Neuralink, AI, and robot enforcement) eerily mirrors corporate-controlled law enforcement in dystopian fiction.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.worldBanned
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    We should make 10 nukes and retire all armed forces. Then we just tell the world… We got 10 solutions to your problem. And just focus on getting more of those nukes up in space. That should make enough money to pay for social security, back rubs and happy endings. Probably toss in some NPR and educational funding.