I have called it a Ponzi scheme too for what you discuss. The scheme is giving benefit to people for years but not charging them enough to cover their future benefit (or using the fund for more than retirement).To be fair, the government has mismanaged social security so it has become similar to a Ponzi scheme. If they had managed it effectively from the get-go and left the fund entirely out of political reach, it would be much more self-sufficient. So now, due to mismanagement over the decades, it operates similarly to a Ponzi scheme in that new people paying in compromise a not insubstantial percentage of the money paid out each year. It doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile and doesn't help anyone, and framing it as an illegal scheme sure does a lot to further Musk's goal of gutting it to give the money to the billionaires. But in it's current iteration it does function similarly.
The scheme is we (current taxpayers) will be paying much more in ten years or less to cover the benefits for those that did not pay on enough. Part of it is we have a top heavy generation and not enough new taxpayers to pay in (lets make immigration and citizen streamlined for those willing to work and contribute.
We need to promote employee ownership and give more incentives to invest in 401ks, while making it harder to take those funds out before retirement. Maybe even let people use some of their fica withholding in 401k vs social security.
Politicians on both sides have kicked the SS can down the road as cutting it or charging more will piss off voters.
I'd love to see higher capital gains and FICA on capital gains over say, 10mm a year. Many high wealth taxpayers live on capital gains and this would help close the loop.
I can confirm this to some extent. I sit on the board of a chain of grocery stores in the west. All 3 of our suppliers have not had any issues meeting our supply needs. Not sure about other markets.