And the Supreme Court has given them the authority to do that. Social Sceurity is not an entitlement, insurance program, earmark nor earned right. It is a payroll tax on one side and a welfare program on the other.
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.”
The Court’s decision was not surprising. 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. Congress has cut Social Security benefits in the past and is likely to do so in the future.
Very well stated. And, as I like to put it, the fact that the older people have spent all of their tax money (including SS) and then some (actually a lot, as in $16T) DOES NOT give them the right to make my children into debt slaves for their now-unfunded retirement.
If they want money when they retire, they should have saved their own money. If they didn’t do that, then they should ask THEIR children first (not have the government put a gun to the head of my children). If neither is available, then they should be able to go to the state and take my kids’ money, but only to the point of what is needed to survive.
And don’t give me any crap about an “implied contract”. I started working 30 years ago myself, and EVERYONE back then knew that Social Security money was being spent faster than it came in, on all kinds of stuff beyond Social Security. As you said, it is a payroll TAX, just like an income TAX, it all went the same place and it was ALL spent at that time, and that WAS NOT a state secret.
One significant item draining SS funds is supplemental social security benefits given to seniors who immigrate to US. They have never worked in US and therefore never “contributed” FICA tax. Yet they are given lifelong monthly benefit checks.
My favorite theoretical question, a litmus test for conservatives is this: Would you roll our government back to its limited constitutionally activities even if you have to give up Social Security? I rarely get a yes and usually hear a litany of excuses as to why that person, who claims to be in favor of limited, small, constitutional, low tax, stay out of my life government, is owed, or earned, or promised, or sacrificed, or served in the military, is owed their check and how most everyone else did not.
Many of them are on this forum.