 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
JohnT
|
 |
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:30
|
|
Oh, and before you say that my arguments only come from "right wing" lies and other crapola, take it from the SSA itself:
http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html
quote:
The fact that workers contribute to the Social Security program's funding through a dedicated payroll tax establishes a unique connection between those tax payments and future benefits. More so than general federal income taxes can be said to establish "rights" to certain government services. This is often expressed in the idea that Social Security benefits are "an earned right." This is true enough in a moral and political sense. But like all federal entitlement programs, Congress can change the rules regarding eligibility--and it has done so many times over the years. The rules can be made more generous, or they can be made more restrictive. Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn, as for example with student benefits, which were substantially scaled-back in the 1983 Amendments.
There has been a temptation throughout the program's history for some people to suppose that their FICA payroll taxes entitle them to a benefit in a legal, contractual sense. That is to say, if a person makes FICA contributions over a number of years, Congress cannot, according to this reasoning, change the rules in such a way that deprives a contributor of a promised future benefit. Under this reasoning, benefits under Social Security could probably only be increased, never decreased, if the Act could be amended at all. Congress clearly had no such limitation in mind when crafting the law. Section 1104 of the 1935 Act, entitled "RESERVATION OF POWER," specifically said: "The right to alter, amend, or repeal any provision of this Act is hereby reserved to the Congress." Even so, some have thought that this reservation was in some way unconstitutional. This is the issue finally settled by Flemming v. Nestor.
In this 1960 Supreme Court decision Nestor's denial of benefits was upheld even though he had contributed to the program for 19 years and was already receiving benefits. Under a 1954 law, Social Security benefits were denied to persons deported for, among other things, having been a member of the Communist party. Accordingly, Mr. Nestor's benefits were terminated. He appealed the termination arguing, among other claims, that promised Social Security benefits were a contract and that Congress could not renege on that contract. In its ruling, the Court rejected this argument and established the principle that entitlement to Social Security benefits is not contractual right. |
(emphasis mine)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:30
|
|
Damn Johnson. Damn him!
It was Johnson that started the whole SS mess, yes?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:30
|
|
Well, damn Johnson all the same.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:30
|
|
JohnT, actually I was aware you can't actually sue the government to get your money back - I was being a bit of a smartass.
The whole thing seems to violate the concept of implied contracts, though, doesn't it?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
JohnT
|
|
Capitalist
Mar 1999
time: 00:30
|
|
From the above-mentioned Nestor decision. I apologize for the all-caps.
quote:
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 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.
IT IS HARDLY PROFITABLE TO ENGAGE IN CONCEPTUALIZATIONS REGARDING "EARNED RIGHTS" AND GRATUITIES." CF. LYNCH V. UNITED STATES, 292 U.S. 571, 576-577. 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 HAS SINCE
RETAINED, A CLAUSE EXPRESSLY RESERVING TO IT "THE RIGHT TO ALTER, AMEND, OR REPEAL ANY PROVISION" OF THE ACT. SEC. 1104, 49 STAT. 648, 42 U.S.C. SEC. 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 SEC. 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. |
Does some lawyer-type want to explain the boldened section? Sounds to me that what they are saying is that the idea of a "lockbox" (or "property rights") to SS funds is, according to the USSC, unconstitutional because it violates the due process clause of the 5th Amendment.
How so?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:30.
Apolyton Time is 00:30. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-09-2003 02:55
|