It has two sources of funding (taxes being the second) and there isn’t a middle man skimming a cut while paying older participants simply with new participants’ money while claiming their money is invested to generate money to pay them all out. The entire point of a Ponzi scheme is you are pretending there is money being generated that isn’t, you are just using new victims money for as long as possible until the music stops. They literally make up numbers to cover their tracks. It’s a fraudulent enterprise by design.
It is not a Ponzi scheme. It is literally not a Ponzi scheme by definition. You are making up your own rules and definitions because of how it feels to you. Do I think it is flawed and not a great way of handling these funds if you want them to be steady in the longterm? Absolutely. But it is not a Ponzi scheme.
I’m done man.
It has two sources of funding
Taxes is the same source of funding. Workers.
there isn’t a middle man skimming a cut
Er. The government.
The entire point of a Ponzi scheme is you are pretending there is money being generated that isn’t.
Exactly. State Pensions are promised but there is no money held aside for them.
It is literally not a Ponzi scheme by definition.
I’ve already given you the Ponzi literature, and shown that PAYG pensions satisfy the description.
I’m done man.
Cos, like your PAYG error, you just can’t admit being wrong.
