Skip to comments.Democrat: Gov't Has No Contractual Obligation to Pay Social Security Benefits
Posted on 09/14/2011 2:38:29 PM PDT by Nachum
click here to read article
Not a big fan of that. So from the time I was 16 to whenever I basically got screwed out of thousands upon thousands of dollars.They can take it out of their Federal taxes i.e. eliminate my Federal deduction.
(I know you're just trying to provide solutions which is more than most of us do on here.)
Has anyone told Al Gore?
A government big enough to give you everything you need is strong enough to take everything you have.
That's just actuarial. If you could get a cash equivalent, the amount you'd need at 62 to pay your reduced benefit, would be the same as the amount you'd need at 65 to support the full benefit, assumning you live to the same expected lifespan.
What part of MY MONEY arent they clear on?
But that is the point, it's not your money. Your money was spent when you put it in to support the older generations. IOW it was a Ponzi scheme. :)
What was left over was spent by Congress on whatever they felt like, and they felt like a lot.
“Well then, if the government doesnt have to pay benefits, then I dont have to pay into SS. Sure would give me extra money in my pocket. The other thing that sticks in my craw is that we have to wait til 65 to ALL of OUR MONEY. If you apply at 62 you only get 75%. What part of MY MONEY arent they clear on?”
I don’t really kick about that part, after all it is pretty standard in any kind of retirement plan that if you take early retirement you get a smaller monthly check. You couldn’t expect those who wait until 65 and pay more into the plan for those three years while drawing nothing to get the same check as those who retire at 62.
Now the rest of it is crap, including the fact that you have to pay in whether you want to be part of the plan or not.
Well, I was thinking about a scaffold for a hundred or so nooses but the nails might be an amusing alternative. I do insist on having a piece of the ox cart concession, though.
MontaniSemperLiberi, OK let’s look at a few numbers.
the average monthly SSI check is $1,180.80
This amounts to $14,169 per year.
If we use age 65 as a starting point, the average life expectancy of 78 years would mean that we would end up paying a total of $184,204.80 over the next thirteen years per average recipient.
Using twenty million recipients as a guess as to how many might be willing to accept a one-time average buyout of $75,000 each to leave the system we need to borrow 1.5 trillion dollars. Lets say we do this at an annual percentage rate of 3 percent and pay it off entirely in those thirteen years we would otherwise have to send SSI checks out to these folks. Here’s the net result after all is said and done.
Total paid by taxpayers to do this after thirteen years is $1.856 trillion.
Total that would have been paid by taxpayers if no buyout is $3.684 trillion
To me, this seems to be a no-brainer, a 50 percent savings overall.
Ending social security would be the best thing financially for those with twenty or more years to start saving on their own. For one, what you save will be yours and no politician could take it from you or whomever you leave it to. Two, as current recipients die off, your rate of taxation decreases until over a period of time you pay no SSI. This is a 15 percent raise over time compared to what you are currently taking home. Investing just this alone would probably match or exceed what you think you might get from Social Security. The ones who end up being stuck somewhat are those who refuse the buyout opportunity and those between ten and twenty years away from being eligible.
At least those who refuse the buyout have a choice. The ten to twenty group won’t get this choice, BUT, they will get reduced SSI taxation so as to enable them to put money aside in their own private accounts. All of these scenarios involve a little sacrifice and a little reward, the primary one being an end to to this awful theft plan so that future generations are not screwed over by it.
Where do we get the $75,000? We have to tax it, borrow it or print it.
“Lets say we do this at an annual percentage rate of 3 percent and pay it off entirely in those thirteen years we would otherwise have to send SSI checks out to these folks.”
Okay, you want to borrow it. I don’t agree with that. We’ve borrowed enough, IMHO.
Frankly SS is not the cause of our deficit today. The cause is excessive spending, ineffective tax cuts (pay roll tax cut is one) and poor revenue from a poor economy.
My plan is pretty straight forward. In any year that SS runs a deficit, the retirement age is increased by three months. Put it on a cash flow basis.
Not entirely true. Many low wage earners never live long enough to collect social security, while many high earners live into their 80’s and 90’s.
The biggest transfer of wealth is from working black men to wealthy white women (shortest lived to longest lived). Many of these women never worked outside the home and receive SS based on their husband’s contributions.
Actually, I suggest folks read the entire decision.
The case states:
The "right" to Social Security benefits is in one sense "earned," for the entire scheme rests on the legislative judgment that those who in their productive years were functioning members of the economy may justly call upon that economy, in their later years, for protection from "the rigors of the poor house as well as from the haunting fear that such a lot awaits them when journey's end is near." Helvering v. Davis, supra, at 641. But the practical effectuation of that judgment has of necessity called forth a highly complex and interrelated statutory structure. Integrated treatment of the manifold specific problems presented by the Social Security program demands more than a generalization. That program was designed to function into the indefinite future, and its specific provisions rest on predictions as to expected economic conditions which must inevitably prove less than wholly accurate, and on judgments and preferences as to the proper allocation of the Nation's resources which evolving economic and social conditions will of necessity in some degree modify.
To engraft upon the Social Security system a concept of "accrued property rights" would deprive it of the flexibility and boldness in adjustment to ever-changing conditions which it demands. See Wollenberg, Vested Rights in Social-Security Benefits, 37 Ore. L. Rev. 299, 359. It was doubtless out of an awareness of the need for such flexibility that Congress included in the original Act, and 611*611 has since retained, a clause expressly reserving to it "[t]he right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision" of the Act. § 1104, 49 Stat. 648, 42 U. S. C. § 1304. That provision makes express what is implicit in the institutional needs of the program. See Analysis of the Social Security System, Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives, 83d Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 920-921. It was pursuant to that provision that § 202 (n) was enacted.
We must conclude that a person covered by the Act has not such a right in benefit payments as would make every defeasance of "accrued" interests violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
The decision continues:
This is not to say, however, that Congress may exercise its power to modify the statutory scheme free of all constitutional restraint. The interest of a covered employee under the Act is of sufficient substance to fall within the protection from arbitrary governmental action afforded by the Due Process Clause. In judging the permissibility of the cut-off provisions of § 202 (n) from this standpoint, it is not within our authority to determine whether the Congressional judgment expressed in that section is sound or equitable, or whether it comports well or ill with the purposes of the Act. "Whether wisdom or unwisdom resides in the scheme of benefits set forth in Title II, it is not for us to say. The answer to such inquiries must come from Congress, not the courts. Our concern here, as often, is with power, not with wisdom." Helvering v. Davis, supra, at 644. Particularly when we deal with a withholding of a noncontractual benefit under a social welfare program such as this, we must recognize that the Due Process Clause can be thought to interpose a bar only if the statute manifests a patently arbitrary classification, utterly lacking in rational justification.
Such is not the case here. The fact of a beneficiary's residence abroadin the case of a deportee, a presumably permanent residencecan be of obvious relevance to the question of eligibility.
This is actually a fairly narrow decision relating to one specific portion of the Social Security Act.
My plan ends social security altogether in about thirty years and allows folks to create their own retirement nest eggs that thy alone would own. How do you achieve this if at all your way?
Yes, yes you will. Somebody's got to get screwed. People bitching about all they put in and not getting a check act like we have a damn time machine or something.
The money's spent. It's long gone. It could be in a scrapped out Howitzer, a bridge in Kentucky. or could have bought Pampers for some broad's kid on welfare in 1987. But it's gone and there's nothing we can do about it.
And there's possible way by laws of economics and mathematics we can pay people back past a certain point.
So get over it so we can save our nation from economic collapse.
We got people on this country who think it most honorable to sacrifice one's for their country, but they won't sacrifice a damn $1,800 dollar check from the government.
They "worked so hard for so long" and their entitled. They "deserve" it.
Yeah, well I worked hard too, and I deserve to have Alyssa Milano in my bed tonight. You won't see me whining on an internet forum that she isn't ringing my doorbell.
Ya mean like taxation without representation? Too bad for corrupt government.
Like I said, I'd pay to see them tells those that live off what was confiscated from them, they spent it all, on things like freebies, medical care etc, for tens of millions of illegal aliens.
I suggest at that point, those in D.C. build a large wall around that city.
I don’t. Some people won’t save or they will outlive their savings. The penalty for irresponsibility shouldn’t be death.
I’m not into a secular libertarian survival of the fittest future world.
Just a general note to anyone looking to reduce the SS burden who also makes it to the end of this thread. (Includes me.)
A lot of elderly people and near elderly people are very afraid of what the future might bring. I think we should be nice to them when discussing this issue. As right or as wrong as they might be, they are people too and deserve politeness.
Yeah,and they could put their SS check into slot machines and bottles of Jim Beam.
The penalty for irresponsibility shouldnt be death.
At some level of irresponsibility it always will be. It always was. What you're arguing about is the threshold. The higher the threshold the lower the level of liberty. I think the threshold should be lowered and liberty raised myself.
You’re correct. The Govt doesn’t have to pay me a cent of SS. However, in that case they WILL have to return everything that I and my employers contributed to SS in my name over the last 35 years, of course adjusted for inflation.
No, it would not.
The liabilities of the Social Security Act can be eliminated or changed by mere legislation, and are nothing like bond debt.
In short, if SS payments are not made, it does not affect either the credit rating of the US, nor would it result in any “credit event” causing the payoff of a CDS on US Treasury debt.
The central issues of Flemming v. Nestor, IMO, are two:
1. Is SS a pension, ie, does it create a property right upon which you can collect at the pre-determined age with the right to seek redress in the courts if Congress denies you the benefits you thought were promised?
The answer is “no.” The court described Social Security as a “social insurance” program:
“The Social Security system may be accurately described as a form of social insurance, enacted pursuant to Congress’ power to “spend money in aid of the `general welfare,’ “ Helvering v. Davis, supra, at 640, whereby persons gainfully employed, and those who employ them, are taxed to permit the payment of benefits to the retired and disabled, and their dependents. Plainly the expectation is that many members of the present productive work force will in turn become beneficiaries rather than supporters of the program. But each worker’s benefits, though flowing from the contributions he made to the 610*610 national economy while actively employed, are not dependent on the degree to which he was called upon to support the system by taxation. It is apparent that the noncontractual interest of an employee covered by the Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.”
2. The Congress reserved to itself the right to change the Social Security Act (it is in the original legislation, plain as day), and all the court is saying in this instance is that denial of benefits cannot be arbitrary, ie, that they must follow due process in denying them to individuals.
Going through the legislative process and setting the standards by which people can make claims upon the system would meet that test.
You mean Al Gore lied to me when when assured me all those SS dollars were carefully stored away for my future in a Social Security Lock Box?
Next thing you will be telling me is that the Tooth Fairy is out of money and that the Easter Bunny has just been eaten by a hungry family whose 99 weeks of unemployment benefits have just run out
The Congress has, over a period of years, created so much propaganda and nonsense surrounding Social Security that they should be in jail for mail and wire fraud.
The truth is that your “yearly account” statement is part of that propaganda.
The other truth is that the money you “contributed” is gone. It was spent by the Congress because the Social Security Administration “loaned” the money to the US Treasury by buying US Treasury debt, whereupon the SSA was funding (in part) the general budget deficits of the last 40 years.
Now, since the Social Security system is running either a small surplus of income, or a small deficit as a result of more claims than income, the SSA must start redeeming the internal debt instruments which they bought from the US Treasury in the past. This means that in order to give the money back to the SSA, the US Treasury must issue new debt to redeem the older, internal-to-government debt held by the SSA.
As the boomers retire, the amount of internal debt redemptions will go up - rapidly. Even if we held discretionary and military spending constant, right where it is now, the annual budget deficit will go up by hundreds of billions of dollars per year going forward for the next 20+ years as the boomers retire and fully load down the SSA with claims and the US Treasury must issue new debt to redeem the “old debt” in the SSA in order to allow the SSA to make payments to those who are now making claims on the benefit.
That projected budget deficit increase doesn’t include the increase in interest rates that eventually will have to occur as the US government runs out of people from whom they can borrow funds.
From my playing with the mathematics of the issue, I don’t believe it can be maintained.
To do so will mean, in the following order of events:
1. Higher taxes, which will lead to
2. A slowdown in GDP and employment, which leads to
3. A decrease in tax revenues (income, sales/excise and payroll)
4. Which will lead to bigger deficits faster.
And I fully expect Congress to go down this road - they’re already on this road now.
But at some point, someone will do a study and say “There’s no way around it, we simply must cut spending.” And then we’ll see:
5. Cuts in domestic discretionary spending, starting with things like ag subsidies, roads, law enforcement, etc.
6. Followed by military projects and weapons systems.
7. Followed by more cuts in the defense budget.
8. Now things start getting tight, and they have to start cutting entitlements. First route I foresee is means testing on medical entitlements, then means testing on Social Security. The age of eligibility will be raised.
Eventually, they will have no choice. It will be either “cut entitlements” or go down the road Greece is on now, with huge international and domestic ramifications, including war.
Please don’t use that term, even in jest. Thanks.
Interesting new twist by the dims, seems they may have some surprises in the future for SS recipients.
What contract did you sign?
Really, what contract did you sign for these guaranteed returns?
in other words... It’s just ANOTHER TAX then!!!
Tax return Form 1040, line #57 = “Unreported social security and Medicare TAX from Form...”. Also, line #69 = “Excess social security and tier 1 RRTA TAX withheld.”
What post do you think you're responding to?
Only problem with that is they have guns. And handcuffs. And IRS agents. As soon as the government gets hands on the money, it's gone. And when all we pay is gone, they borrow more in our name.
When not done by government, this is called extortion, fraud, misappropriation, and theft. We should call it the same when it is done by government, instead of taxes, your government at work, Social Security, etc. Don't let the thieves and extortionists win the battle of words.
According to the government, as soon as it touches it, it isn't your money any more. So best to make your money untouchable.
This is a 15 percent raise over time compared to what you are currently taking home. Investing just this alone would probably match or exceed what you think you might get from Social Security.
You thought SS was a quid pro quo? LOL it was ruled long ago by SCOTUS to be nothing more than a tax that imposes NO obligation on the federal government to come through with its promises.
The government STOLE my money and said I could have it back to help out
when I retired. They’re criminals!
Yes, I understand there is an increase in SS obligations in the coming years. Everyone knows about it. It is a future obligation to pay more than it takes in. However, there are far more less credible federal obligations to reduce or eliminate first than to purposely defraud, under color of law, the SS system. That would do enormous damage to the credibility and trust of the USG amongst its most productive citizens. It’s bonds and contracts from that point forward would be worthless to its wage-earing citizens.
I see innumerable budget cutting options before the government would choose to wholly destroy its credibility.
I refer to this as "Senior Freeper Dancing with the Stars" featuring:
the Cutting Waste and Fraud Will Solve The Problem Two-Step
the Lets Eliminate the Mohair Subsidy and NASA So We Can Save My Monthly Check Cha-Cha-Cha
the Get Rid of Every Government Program Except The One That Benefits ME Tango
the Tax The Snot Out Of My Grandkids, But Keep My Check Coming Waltz
and that evergreen favorite, the Kick The Can Down The Alley Until After Im Dead Fox Trot"!
Jeff cooper is right, of course. You all do know that? The Fed.gov is NOT legally obligated to pay any funds that are not in the trust fund (which is currently at a zero balance.)
Jeff Cooper is right, of course. You all do know that? The Fed.gov is NOT legally obligated to pay any funds that are not in the trust fund (which is currently at a zero balance.)
Weeeeeelll...that could happen.
If the government can find a magic dwarf who spins straw into gold.
The only other way you will ever "get it all back" is for your kids and your grandkids to be taxed at 2x or 3x the current SS rate so that the money they pay in can be given to you. Is that what you're angling for??
A nice little Catch-22 money scheme if there ever was one.
Perfectly right. I called Cooper this morning and stated what I did in the post. It’s puzzeling how anyone can work for people like this. What part of “my money” don’t they get?
If Obamacare is unconstitutional (as I believe) then this should be too.
The point isn’t that folks who wait til 65 have paid in longer and therefore get more. The point is that the folks who apply for their money at 62 are due the full amount, not just 75%. Why should they have to wait til 65?
What part of "it's just an income tax" and they never had any account with "your money" in it don't you get?
That’s pretty funny.
Okay, I guess I don’t follow you, what are you saying? Do you mean that people should get at 62 what they get now at 65? That would mean that people who retire at 65 should get a lot more than they do now. Can you elucidate?
I just want the money I put in the damn thing, not stupid benefits. The older crowd are the ones who continued to vote for this crap. They can have their benefits cut in half. Every politician who voted for this crap can have their retirements confiscated.
You get over it! I knew by the time I was 26 Social Security was a fraud.
I want out TODAY. I can't get out. I continue to get screwed week after week. I'll get screwed AGAIN this Friday. Don't tell me to get over it. It's money I could put somewhere else.
That's a really stupid analogy.
But you didn't put any money "in" to anything, other than you paid an income tax to the Treasury as me and 20 other posters are on this thread trying to explain.
I'm sure the majority of people would like their income taxes fully refunded, but it's mathematically impossible to do without assessing higher income taxes on someone else.
The government has no business owning old people. That's , in essence, what social security is. I believe in God, not government, and I have faith that those truly in need will be taken care of through better and more humane and personal support mechanisms than a bloated bureaucracy. Have a little faith in your fellow man.