Japan has been grappling with its demographic statistics with a sense of urgency, particularly regarding its declining birth rate. In 2023, the country...
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how these funds work.
The goal is not to pay people with the money from new people paying into the pot. They invest the money and then the pot grows and that money is used to pay out. When the pot is not growing enough - whether because investments aren’t doing well enough, or you designed a you designed an bad system where people can withdraw from it for too long, or any other many possible issues - then yes you functionally end up dipping into the money given by new people, but this is not how it was designed to be used.
You are acting like this is a one-to-one system where you just put money in, then you get money out later, and all of the money given out is 100% the money that people put in in the first place with no intention of growing that money or finding a sustainable way of disseminating it long-term.
Mismanagement/poorly built systems are not the same as Ponzi schemes. Unless you think, I don’t know, US Social Security is also a Ponzi scheme?
State pension plans are primarily funded (in order of what comprises the most) by 1) the government 2) investments and 3) employee contributions.
Pay as you go is about employee contributions, which is typically the smallest pot being contributed. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
Of course I understand that the money that is put in is invested, but that doesn’t mean the problem goes away when the system relies on the “pot” growing at a certain rate.
EDIT:
Mismanagement/poorly built systems are not the same as Ponzi schemes. Unless you think, I don’t know, US Social Security is also a Ponzi scheme?
I’m not implying that it’s the same, just that the comparison fits better than you might expect.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how these funds work.
The goal is not to pay people with the money from new people paying into the pot. They invest the money and then the pot grows and that money is used to pay out. When the pot is not growing enough - whether because investments aren’t doing well enough, or you designed a you designed an bad system where people can withdraw from it for too long, or any other many possible issues - then yes you functionally end up dipping into the money given by new people, but this is not how it was designed to be used.
You are acting like this is a one-to-one system where you just put money in, then you get money out later, and all of the money given out is 100% the money that people put in in the first place with no intention of growing that money or finding a sustainable way of disseminating it long-term.
Mismanagement/poorly built systems are not the same as Ponzi schemes. Unless you think, I don’t know, US Social Security is also a Ponzi scheme?
This misunderstanding is on your side. There is a method of funding pensions refered to as pay as you go (PAYG).
This is exactly how many unfunded, state sponsored pension schemes function. No pot of money exists. Only the ability to collect taxes.
This is true for private pension schemes run by companies and individual pension schemes. Funded pension schemes are (usually) not ponzis.
State pension plans are primarily funded (in order of what comprises the most) by 1) the government 2) investments and 3) employee contributions.
Pay as you go is about employee contributions, which is typically the smallest pot being contributed. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
The UK State Pension is unfunded, which means that its obligations are not underpinned by an actual fund or funds. Such schemes are often referred to as “Pay As You Go” (PAYG). The pension payments made by the government for unfunded pensions are financed on an ongoing basis from National Insurance contributions and general taxation.
“Tell me the difference between stupid and illegal and I’ll have my wife’s brother arrested”
Of course I understand that the money that is put in is invested, but that doesn’t mean the problem goes away when the system relies on the “pot” growing at a certain rate.
EDIT:
I’m not implying that it’s the same, just that the comparison fits better than you might expect.
When did I ever say the problem goes away? I am saying it is not a Ponzi scheme. You were saying it is a Ponzi scheme. Don’t move the goalposts here.