[namdnay]

The boomers definitely weren’t the first getting in, the original pensions were paid to their own parents

It’s not really a Ponzi scheme, it is completely possible for the system to be balanced, it’s just very very hard to get people to vote for you if you say they’ll have less tomorrow

[WinstonSmith84]

maybe you don't like it to be called a Ponzi scheme, but the reality is that it is one.

Definition of a Ponzi scheme: A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investor. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk. But in many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters do not invest the money. Instead, they use it to pay those who invested earlier and may keep some for themselves.

https://www.investor.gov/protect-your-investments/fraud/type...

That's exactly how pensions work in Europe. Replace "Ponzi scheme organizers" by "legally elected governments" and here you have it - you have a whole continent of people believing that their pension is a given. Not everybody may like it, but that's the hard truth.

In the US, people contribute towards a 401K, and choose how to invest, but typically pick up just the S&P 500 - anyway and at least that money is somehow what they have saved for themselves.

But I agree with your statement "it is completely possible for the system to be balanced" - yes a Ponzi scheme can be absolutely balanced, you just need enough participants ...

[simianwords]

i disagree. this is not at all a ponzi scheme. as you have pointed out the ponzi scheme has no value outside of the system and relies on deception to convince people to buy in to it. crucially the investment scheme provides no "value".

pensions on the other hand don't have the quality of deception and the value is straightforward - it redistributes wealth from the younger population to the older ones. this reduces the need for individuals to plan their retirements as the state takes care of it. as pointed by another post, you don't need a pyramid here, just somewhat equal proportions of population on each side.

wouldn't you characterise any tax scheme as a ponzi scheme? unemployment benefits, healthcare etc? what makes them different from pensions?

but i do agree that one should not think of pensions as a given. its worth pointing out that there are two types of pensions - defined benefits and defined contributions.

[LunaSea]

> pensions on the other hand don't have the quality of deception

Writing this in an article about how a country rug-pulled it's young citizens is quite amusing.

If that's not deception, I don't know what is.

> you don't need a pyramid here, just somewhat equal proportions of population on each side

Which hasn't been the case in how many years already?

[WinstonSmith84]

> wouldn't you characterise any tax scheme as a ponzi scheme?

No, not exactly, that's different.

> unemployment benefits, healthcare etc? what makes them different from pensions?

That's certainly contributions I don't like either, because of how this system is abused. But to be fair, unemployment benefits or healthcare aren't a pyramid scheme, because you aren't paying for the previous "investors" - you might get back what you contributed (with a lots of caveats). In the case of the pension system, you clearly pay the previous "investors".

[tgv]

It's not a fraud. How can you say so? Also, the first pensioners didn't invest in the system. There isn't even a concept of investment in old-age social welfare, unlike other pensions. It's also not a pyramid scheme, since the structure is upside down, and there is no recruitment.

Calling it something else than it is, only to taint the system and its receivers by associating it with a criminal undertaking is bad faith, if not worse.

[WinstonSmith84]

I just quoted the definition of a Ponzi scheme, hence the word "fraud". The definition of a fraud is "... fraud is intentional deception ... to gain from a victim ... unfairly" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud - maybe this gives another perspective what a fraud can be?..

> the first pensioners didn't invest in the system

I agree with you .. I suppose you're making my point here?

> It's also not a pyramid scheme, since the structure is upside down

The structure would be upside down if the demography was growing as expected - and that's the core of the issue, why governments have to extend the age of the retirement: the burden of the pensions is becoming unbearable relative to the amount of active people.

> there is no recruitment.

No indeed, though if you decide to live in Denmark, you are not recruited, you're forcefully enrolled in this scheme.

> ... to taint ... its receivers by associating it with a criminal undertaking is bad faith

There is no "criminal undertaking" here, the system is simply broken and you're saying things I didn't - I certainly don't blame the current pensioners, nor the active generation working for these pensioners - they are all victims of this system.

[tossandthrow]

> It’s not really a Ponzi scheme, it is completely possible for the system to be balanced, it’s just very very hard to get people to vote for you if you say they’ll have less tomorrow

This is exactly what happens in Denmark - a balancing of the pension system.

Also,rgis has been planned since 2006 - so it is nothing new.

[namdnay]

A real balancing would entail cutting pensions for existing pensioners. Which is electoral suicide. So what you always end up doing is shafting future pensioners, either by pushing back the retirement age, or by doing nothing and waiting for it to explode

[tossandthrow]

I reckon the presumption is that current pensioners don't live as long as future pensioners.

Hence only doing this for future pensioners will give equal time as reitred.

(at least, this is the core reasoning)

[lazyasciiart]

Also, that people who have twenty years to plan for their retirement to happen under these conditions will not be as screwed as someone told that their plans for next week are off.

[FirmwareBurner]

But those people retiring from 2040 are still getting screwed by a policy. How is more time to prepare gonna help? Are you gonna magic some more money out of thin air by then?

[lazyasciiart]

You don’t need more money to continue working.

[StackRanker3000]

Why is that way of balancing this more real than the others?