Raising the retirement age I think is not fair. Asking guys in their 60’s to do the same work as guys in their 40’s is not fair if the job is at all a hands on doing job. Anything as simple as a big flight of stairs can become a major obstacle. If all you do is go up and down elevators, talk, and use a computer then you can go as long as your mind stays sharp and you have the drive. Not everyone loves their job after doing it for 30+ years and would like to slow down just to appreciate the people and world around them for their remaining time.

In the UK the retirement age of 65 (for men) was set when life expectancy was 64. Now life expectancy is 81, and the retirement age is only 66.

Completely untenable when the generation retiring has also taken the lions share of property wealth, imposed student debt upon and consistently voted against the interests of the generation paying for their retirement.

These figures are highly misleading though because life expectancy includes significant outliers dragging the number down from infant mortality rates which declined over the same period. It is not the case that your life expectancy given reaching age 60 has increased by anywhere near as much as 17 years over the same time period.

> The most obvious solution to this is raising the age of retirement, but that's always politically difficult and somehow seen as cruel.

There is another problem: many people go into decline as they get older. My company retires some people at 40 with a full pension because most people physically cannot do the job anymore (I'm not sure if they are able to do much else after that). Airpline pilots are required to retire at 60 (I don't remember the exact age) because we are sure none are very far into mental decline even though a few could work for 30 more years.

The ponzi part of it is that current payers pay for current retirees. If the pension worked on a forced investment model where you paid into your own retirement and the money was invested for you that would be different. It would even be viable to say the money from those who died prematurely would be distributed to other users and it's possible to have the system generate more overall money for retirees than just what they put in and gain from investment.

However, the current system is quite far from that. The money you pay in goes nearly immediately to existing retirees with a moderate reserve of capital that is slowly decreasing as more money exits the system than enters it. This system cannot pay current retirees without the investment from new users, and that's what makes it a ponzi.

Pensions paid directly by current workers are not really so different from pensions paid out of investments. The thing that one "owns" in most of today's public equities is not physical capital (plants and equipment) but the "nexus of contracts" that allows you to make money from other peoples' labor. In other words, you are still living on backs of the working generation, same as Social Security or similar schemes.

Until we invent self-replicating physical capital (i.e. a Santa Claus machine that can make other Santa Claus machines), this will always be true.

All models are a ponzi that depend on a future generation doing labor. Retirement is ultimately a promise that someone will grow food and the other things you need/want. SS depends on the next generation being willing to pay, while stocks depend on the next generation willing to buy those stocks (or dividends because the company because the next generation bought things from it). Funds in a mattress depend on people wanting your cash.

> All models are a ponzi

No, they are not. “A ponzi” is a fraud. Some of the schemes you mention are not sustainable under certain hypotheses, but none of them have the deceptive and fraudulent aspects of Ponzi schemes, which is important. These are strategies, that might work out or that might not, but in any case they are not tools for personal enrichment through deception.

The biggest issue with social security funding is there is a cap on it. Once you put in so much a year, you don't have to put in anymore. It's essentially a regressive system. A guy who makes a million bucks a year only has to pay social security as if he made $147K. For example, in 2022, everyone only pays social security tax on their first $147K.

https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/retirement/planner/maxtax.html

There is a cap but I think a large part of that is to prevent people from complaining about the size of pensions paid out by the government. What you get back from the program is a function of what you put in and if you allowed people to put in the portion from $1 Million of income you might owe them $200K pensions after 40 years. I don't think the public has appetite for that.

I don't have to pay more for my house insurance if I make more money either.

So what?

But the output is depending on how much you put it, it’s actually progressive. Just less so than taxation in general.

Yes, it's progressive if you just consider the lower and middle class. Actually I think if you get what you put into it, it's neither progressive or regressive. If you include the upper earners, it's regressive. It's as if they capped income tax to your first $100K. Great for one group of people, not for the majority other.

You get more benefits from the first dollars put into SS than the last as far as I understand.