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.

  • Furbag@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Oh, so SS is a ponzi scheme now? Well then, I hope you do something about that, Musk. And then I’d like my tens of thousands of dollars that were taken from my paycheck back, please. After all, if I paid into the system and I haven’t used any benefits yet since I’m not at retirement age, you should be able to pay me back after you seek recompense from all the “mispayments” going on, right?

    This is the billionaire class trying to do a rug pull. Don’t believe their accusations of fraud and abuse, they’re doing anything they can except raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for it. It’s your money. You paid faithfully into the system. If they mismanaged the funds by borrowing against it to fuel military quagmires all around the world, that’s a “them” problem. Hold the government accountable and do not let them cancel your retirement entitlements.

  • tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours 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.

  • Dogiedog64@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    15 hours 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.

  • skozzii@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    17 hours ago

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

  • d33pblu3g3n3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    18 hours ago

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

    Despicable thief and con man.

  • Wispy2891@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Is it possible that every single day I wake up, open Lemmy and get new outraging bullshit from this fantastic duo? Where they get those insane ideas? Don’t they get tired? Go to play golf or so

    • ubergeek@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Where they get those insane ideas?

      They’re not new. The Reich Wing has been saying this for decades, ever since Reagan started taking an ax to the program.

  • crusa187@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    99
    ·
    1 day 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
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      20 hours 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
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours 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
          4
          ·
          16 hours 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.

  • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    63
    ·
    1 day 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      21 hours ago

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

      • yunxiaoli
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        12 hours ago

        MMT is how it’s currently run, and that’s fine if we didn’t schizophrenically fuck up that path every four years by trying to pretend taxes pay for spending like a business.

        Realistically, though, the government should just distribute the resources necessary for life, utilizing whatever means necessary to obtain and redistribute those resources equally without harming anyone’s basic human rights.

        Money, currency, etc is for trading with outside forces. That’s what it was developed for. Trade with people you don’t trust. For the majority of human history local economies ran entirely without currency being involved, with it only being needed for trade. It was fine, it was better locally.

        We can even more easily implement a sharing or trust based local economy now that computers are a thing, and we can easily distribute and equalize necessary resources for the same reason.

        Except then you couldn’t obtain capital, and couldn’t rent things. And without rent you can’t become obscenely rich. So we can’t have that.

  • meowmeowbeanz@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    21 hours ago

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

    🐱🐱

  • Snapz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    21 hours 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.

    • Ajen
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      13 hours ago

      It can run out if the amount if money being distributed exceeds the amount of money being collected. Such as when there are a large number of retirees (the “baby boomer” generation is much larger then the one preceeding it) or fewer workers (eg. if immigration slows or birthrates drop).

      • Snapz@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 hours ago

        The point is that it won’t. Your internet could torn off next ninth if you don’t pay your fucking bill… But you pay your FUCKING bill. There’s no validity in your position. It’s a right wing propaganda talking point - you’re either ignorant of that or complicit in it. Either way, do better.

        • Ajen
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          It’s basic economics, if our population declines (either because people have less babies or immigration declines; both of which are currently happening) there will be less money going in to social security. While that’s happening, the number of retirees is greatly increasing.

          In terms of your internet service analogy, this is like losing your job at the same time your internet rates get raised. You can’t pay your bills if you don’t have any money.

  • just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    190
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      54
      ·
      1 day 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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      1 day ago

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

    • Mac@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      22 hours ago

      Only recently?

      Biden attacked social security in the 90s.

  • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    22 hours 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.

    • caffinatedone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Yep. It’d be inconvenient for them to note that the funding issues are primarily driven by increasing concentration of income which falls above the Social Security withholding cap. If they’d just remove that cap, then no issue.