28

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.

top 30 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] skozzii@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 week ago

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

[-] d33pblu3g3n3@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The favorite dumb argument from the guys who constantly defraud governments via tax dodging and subsidies.

Despicable thief and con man.

[-] meowmeowbeanz@sopuli.xyz 9 points 1 week ago

If Musk dislikes "Ponzi schemes," maybe start by rejecting government subsidies for his ventures.

🐱🐱

[-] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

No no no, not like that. - Moscow musk

[-] aesthelete@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Alternative headline: expert on ponzi schemes bemoans what he sees as competition

[-] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 7 points 1 week ago

Conservatives think the government should be run like a business. You're not buying or selling anything, the point is to serve the people you fucks.

[-] turnip@lemm.ee -3 points 1 week ago

How should it be run, like a Keynesian, an MMT, a monetarist, something else?

[-] crusa187@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 week 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 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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 1 points 1 week 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.

[-] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

SSA publishes some cool solvency estimates for proposed policy changes. It looks like for payroll taxes, though eliminating the taxable maximum helps, some payroll tax rate increase is needed to sustain it long-term.

[-] Snapz@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago

Social security is never going to "run out" it's continuously funded, that's how it works. America lacks curiosity and an attention span beyond a couple seconds. Conservatives loudly accuse (while projecting), demand detailed explanation and then immediately become disinterested in the explanation they demanded - mostly because they can't comprehend the basic concepts and their eyes glaze over. For the most part they are unserious, homicidal and suicidal and just looking for an excuse to have an outburst.

Don't let them leech your energy trying to explain or debate. They don't know or care what you are talking about.

[-] wanderwisley@lemm.ee 4 points 1 week ago

Elon is a anamorphic Ponzi scheme.

[-] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 1 week ago

His bullshit he's spouting isn't even true. US life expectancy hasn't even increased at all over the past 20 years, and has only gone up by like 7 years over the past 50 and they've increased retirement age since then.

[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

It's not a Ponzi Scheme when there's nobody standing to profit you dumb fucking idiot fuck. It's been getting funded for almost 100 years, and has only recently been under fire by assholes like you who accumulate wealth and remove it from being eligible for such a social safety net. Now you're worried we're coming for yours and Rogan's money to fund it, and we will.

Y'all need to stop listening to these morons pal around and podcasts. They mean to harm you and your families, and take away the already middling social programs that benefit you, not them.

[-] athairmor@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

“If I’m not getting rich off it, someone else is.”

That’s how conservatives, from the rich to the poor, see the world.

[-] errer@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

It’s not just recently, conservatives have been threatening social security for decades.

[-] just_another_person@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Recently as in the last few decades. Reagan pretty much started all this bullshit, and it's been a tug of war since.

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week 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?

[-] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

He is in charge of this debacle. He needs to give it more than a first glance

Send that nazi back to South Africa

[-] DNS@discuss.online 1 points 1 week ago

Unfortunately US Republicans are Nazi's. Another sad thing is our society is too stupid to see the similarities as well as afraid calling a spade a spade.

US Republicans are Nazi's.

[-] Rooskie91@discuss.online 1 points 1 week ago

Lol Bro doesn't know what a Ponzi Scheme is

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.

[-] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 1 points 1 week ago

I mean, in a way he’s not wrong. The money gets funneled from all of us all the way to the top.

But the thing is, the money does get distributed - all of it. The Ponzi at the top is us again, stealing from it to pay for infrastructure or defense spending.

And that is fine because that type of scheme with a large moat is called insurance. And so long as we can continue to pay out distributions, it is solvent.

But it isn’t solvent, because premiums haven’t kept up with payouts and the payouts for the baby boomers are massive. And if we don’t take some kind of action (e.g. increased premiums, disqualification for the rich, increase the benefit age) then payouts will eventually need to decrease.

[-] turnip@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week 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?

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Though since treasuries are paid by the government is it not then still a ponzi scheme,

No, social security is investing in treasuries just like any other retirement fund might

in the fact the bonds must be redeemed to pay for shortfalls, in which case the government must tax the existing population

Well yeah, kind of. The government issues bonds to finance its debt. Some amount of that is a good thing, to fund large projects. However a poorly run government running a constantly increasing deficit and funding a constantly increasing debt with constantly increasing bonds is mortgaging its future to pay for its present. Think of the analogy of living off your credit cards. At some point you’ll hit a limit, everything comes due and you’re going to have a very bad time.

This is poor governance, regardless of who is buying the bonds. It has nothing to do with social security.

This is also why the idea of a smaller government is so compelling: we need to do something about ever increasing debt. However the political party that talks most about that is the one most responsible for that debt. You don’t reduce debt by more and more tax cuts for the wealthy nor ever increasing military.

There had been the expectation by some that our debt doesn’t matter as long as the dollar acts as the world’s reserve currency, but what happens when this stops? What happens when chaos spite and narcissism disrupts global trade and alliances, driving other countries away from trade with US, away from the dollar as an exchange currency? What happens when those countries no longer buy the enormous amounts of US Bonds they have been and no longer find our debt? And Social Security is at an inflection where it needs to pay out more than it’s bringing in do starts selling the bonds it’s invested in? We might be in for a very bad time, decades of government mismanagement under taxing the wealthy and overspending coming due at once, triggered by the idiot we voted for

this post was submitted on 02 Mar 2025
28 points (100.0% liked)

politics

21146 readers
1538 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS