View Single Post
Old February 06, 2018, 10:49   #34
NFADLR's Avatar
FALaholic #: 7480
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Location thats the question \_(ツ)_/
Posts: 5,325
Maybe this would tend to show one aspect of why I'm against this ponzi scheme.

*Social Security entitlement Can Be Cut At Any Time: Benefits Are Welfare Payments, Not Insurance

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 Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn,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.
NFADLR is online now   Reply With Quote