Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Lonesome in Massachussets

True. There is no “right” to social security nor it is an insurance plan with accrued rights. It is nothing but a payroll tax on one side and welfare for the recipient.

Many people believe that Social Security is an “earned right.” That is, they think that because they have paid Social Security taxes, they are entitled to receive Social Security benefits. The government encourages that belief by referring to Social Security taxes as “contributions,” as in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. However, in the 1960 case of Fleming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time.

Nestor sued, claiming that because he had paid Social Security taxes, he had a right to Social Security benefits.

The Supreme Court disagreed, saying “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.” The Court went on to say, “It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.”

In an earlier case, Helvering v. Davis (1937), the Court had ruled that Social Security was not a contributory insurance program, saying, “The proceeds of both the employee and employer taxes are to be paid into the Treasury like any other internal revenue generally, and are not earmarked in any way.”

In other words, Social Security is not an insurance program at all. It is simply a payroll tax on one side and a welfare program on the other. Your Social Security benefits are always subject to the whim of 535 politicians in Washington.


34 posted on 05/05/2013 7:39:36 AM PDT by CharlesMartelsGhost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: CharlesMartelsGhost

You are making the other half of the argument: Neither actuarially sound, nor a legally binding commitment. I thought the second part was too obvious to mention. But, Hell, it kept the Democrats in Power for four generations, so it’s served its purpose.


36 posted on 05/05/2013 7:44:56 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (Doing the same thing and expecting different results is called software engineering.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

To: CharlesMartelsGhost

Amen. Well said sir.


45 posted on 05/05/2013 8:04:20 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas is a state of mind - Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

To: CharlesMartelsGhost

In other words, Socialist Security is nothing but one big trough for the pigs in Washington to wallow around in.


51 posted on 05/05/2013 8:13:52 AM PDT by Texas Eagle (If it wasn't for double-standards, Liberals would have no standards at all -- Texas Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson