I'm 45. Will Social Security still be around when I'm ready to collect?

[JohnT]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I wonder if there will be any way to sue the government for a return of the money you were forced to pay into SS.

It's been done, and no. Fleming vs. Nestor, 1961 (or so).

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
Seeing how its all gone since it wasn't in a lockbox, looks like the scheme is heading down the shitter. Thanks Bush, and thank you Republicans.

Boy, you don't know much about SS and how it is constitutionally required to operate, do you?

In a USSC case, Helvering vs. Davis (1937), the Court held that "The proceeds of both employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in anyway."

Ergo, the idea of a lockbox was a simple campaign lie that Al Gore knew to be a lie when he proposed it. You CANNOT earmark SS funds for Social Security. Period. You CANNOT create a "lockbox" because to do so is against the law. Period.

[JohnT]

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

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 Benefits which are granted at one time can be withdrawn, as for example with student benefits, which were substantially scaled-back in the 1983 Amendments.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)

[Lawrence of Arabia]

So change the law.

[JohnT]

Kind of funny that - A communist arguing for private property rights of public funds! Let's you know which side the human animal is always on when the chips are down - the side of individualism against the collective.

[Japher]

Franklin Delano Roosevelt... stupid Dem

[chequita guevara]

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
So change the law.

And who is going to do that? The Democrats? They held power for 35+ years after the Nestor decision and did nothing. The SSA? They don't want to be so encumbered.

It's not going to happen, LoA.

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by JohnT
Ergo, the idea of a lockbox was a simple campaign lie that Al Gore knew to be a lie when he proposed it. You CANNOT earmark SS funds for Social Security. Period. You CANNOT create a "lockbox" because to do so is against the law. Period.

You are wrong. What the SC said is there is no constitutional requirement that there be a "lockbox" on Social Security funds but if the Congress should enact such a requirement then it would be perectly legal. There is NOTHING, NADA, ZILCH which says you "cannot" create a lockbox.

[JohnT]

Except fiscal responsibility.

[Japher]

Accept fiscal responsibility

[chequita guevara]

Define fiscal responsibility.

[Japher]

Financial Responsibility... I am thinking more along the line of personal finance. However, we also have to deal with this mess and not allow our old folk, who trusted in this system, and contributed to it without pention, to fall to the wayside.

[JohnT]

What I like is how the Congress passed the 1935 SS Act and set the retirement age at 65 - this at a time when the average life expectancy was 58.

Be glad you're not a Black Male, Lancer, cause then you'd really be getting a screwing. You pay in for 40+ years, and can reasonably expect to collect for one. (life expectancy of black males in 1998 was 67.8, white females 79.9) Source: Statistical Abstract of the US, section 2, table 116

The fact is, demographically SS is a massive transfer payment from minorities (especially male minorities) to white females. How the Left can justify such a racist result is beyond me - or maybe they just don't care.

[Japher]

How the Left can justify such a racist result is beyond me - or maybe they just don't care.

What are you talking about!? It's pay back for letting them into college!

[Imran Siddiqui]

And yes, it'll be around. They'll be some creative accounting and people will get their money somehow. But yes, we should raise the retirement age. I'm definetly doing some private investing for retirement funds though, because I'll easily be able to earn more than I'll be getting in SS.

[JohnT]

[aside]

Do note that in the above quoted SSA passage, they freely and openly admit that it is an entitlement program, and not insurance, pension, etc.

[/aside]

[JohnT]

Oh, and Imran is totally correct - because it isn't in a lockbox and headed towards certain, definite disaster, Congress does have the flexibility needed to amend the law, thereby preserving the program in response to differing situations, especially demographics.

Had Congress put it in a "lockbox" back in 1935, it is guaranteed that the Act would not survive the baby boomers, and might not be alive today.

[GePap]

So the most obvious answer to this folks is to move the retimement age to 70 years, and keep it moving back as the general life expenctency increases. ohter enttlements, like medicare and Medicaid and food stamps can help shift many of the every day costs older workers have.

SS in some reformed form will most certainly remain: purey private retiremenmt accounts won;t cut it. First, gievn the relative negative savings rate of the US, seeing a huge surge in savings is unlikely, and to make this different from what existed before 1935 (heck, people could always save for retirement...it didn;t work any better before 1935) the goevrnment would still have to offer some sort of matching funds, so it would remain a large gov. spediture.

The basic probems is simple: people are living much longer while they are NOT increasing their productive years significantly. Even if the retirement age went to 70, how many people will be working full time when 70? Millions and millions of more jobs would have to be created for both teenagers and the elderly to gain employment and keep it. Only when people not only live longer but can count on more productive old age will thi simple byprodcut of modern medical and hygenic science be solved.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by JohnT
The fact is, demographically SS is a massive transfer payment from minorities (especially male minorities) to white females. How the Left can justify such a racist result is beyond me - or maybe they just don't care.

Who says we justify the result? The solution is to try and figure out why Black men are dying so much sooner than white men, and then do something to fix it. The Republicans tried to make an issue of this in the Black community, but the dog didn't hunt.

I wonder how much of Black men's early death rate comes from crime and a substantial number of Black men not making it past their twenties (in which case they haven't put much into the system anyway).

[Jaguar]

I hope that it won't still be around. Nothing against any of you 40 somethings or anything. I just don't wanna have to give you money.

[Lancer]

Damn Johnson. Damn him!

It was Johnson that started the whole SS mess, yes?

[GePap]

No, johnson did zip about SS. FDR begun the program, and it is in trouble due to simple dmeographics..damn all those doctors for getting the life expenctancy up.

[Lancer]

Well, damn Johnson all the same.

[pchang]

You have to realize that the largest group in the left are white females.

[David Floyd]

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?

[Drake Tungsten]

I'm so glad I don't have to pay payroll taxes for a couple years. At least some of my earnings won't be wasted on a doomed program.

[JohnT]

Originally posted by Lancer
"Naw, they'll just keep raising the retirement age until you're dead."

Sloww, they have to give something...right?

No, they don't.

[Q Classic]

you might get it. odds are i won't.

count your blessings, old man.

[JohnT]

From the above-mentioned Nestor decision. I apologize for the all-caps.

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?