[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.