“those who are paying in right now will indeed see their checks come through. “
No they won’t, not most of them. We’re beyond broke. I’m happy for you that your checks are still coming, but it’s an entitlement, not a return on investment. That’s just the way it is.
“You stated something inane about the court holding that ss was not a return of invested money”
No, it was litigated that it was a tax, just like any other tax. It’s not an investment - it’s just a plain ol’ tax.
again - not good or bad, it just is.
I’m a couple dozen years behind you. I will not see what you get - a check in the mail from uncle sam every month.
Nobody my age, or younger will get what you get. So don’t pretend it’s something it is not. Not to me. cash your checks, convince yourself it’s a return on investment - but you are only fooling yourself.
Had Social Security recipients had guaranteed legal claims on their future payments, they'd have have assets in those claims - just as a lifetime annuity holder has an asset. If the receiver has a legal asset, then the payer has a legal liability.
In other words, if Flemming v. Nestor were reversed, the U.S. government would be legally obliged to report the present value of all future Social Security payments - all of them - as a present liability. That's what good accounting practice mandates. If the government doesn't do so, the rating agencies would do it for them.
I'm not sure how huge the unfunded Social Security liability is (not including Medicare), but the government being obliged to do so might make it technically bankrupt. If all future Medicare recipients have an asset in right to future benefits, the U.S. government would be technically bankrupt. The total amount of wealth in the United States is about $70-75 trillion. It's flat-out imposssible for the U.S. government to tax more, and even securing that wealth would require a 100% wealth tax on everyone. Assuming that no wealth would be destroyed by such a tax, and assuming that the collection rate was 100%.
Here's the rock and the hard place: if Flemming v. Nestor were reversed, long-term treasury bonds would have to be rated as junk bonds. Their prices would sink like a stone. If Medicare's legally recognized as an asset, long-term governments would be C-rated - and sink like a stone. A C rating means a high probaility of bankruptcy before the bonds mature and are fully paid off. The only way out of that downgrade would be for the ratings agencies to call attention to the printing press and explain why inflating would not be a disguised default.
All in all, I'd say that not having a court-enforcible right to Social Security payments might not be all that bad. To put it bluntly, that ruling allows the government to legally claim solvency and keep an investment-grade rating on its debt.