Social Security is not an entitlement; it is a contract. I started paying when I was 15 years old and I am now 64. I paid in and am now collecting.
Social Security is not an entitlement; it is a contract. I started paying when I was 15 years old and I am now 64. I paid in and am now collecting.
*****************************************************************************
If it’s a contract...it changed a lot since you were 15 with the benefits being made much more generous. Do the contracted conditions as they were when you were 15 apply to you (i.e., you’ll always get the benefits to which those 49 year ago contractual terms entitle you) but any benefits/amounts ABOVE those 49 year old terms can be taken away? Or is it that you get any and all increases but NONE of the decreases that have or will occur?
You are right. SS payments to those who did not contribute should all be means tested. And, if they raise the minimum wage then SS should also increase. What is killing SS is all the free loaded who did not pay in all their working lives.
They can end it if they pay us back the money they took from us plus the interest we would have earned with that money.
That money probably wouldn't make me a millionaire but it would be a lot more than I expect to ever get back in monthly Social Security payments.
.
It’s not a contract. Contracts are agreements entered into voluntarily. The terms are negotiated by two non-coerced participants. Contract assumes that one has the right to not enter the contract. Try telling the government that do not wish to participate in their bankrupt, fraudulent retirement system. If you’re not free to negotiate the terms or refuse to sign the contract, it’s not a contract. It’s an order.
I hate bursting this bubble, but you should know the truth.
Social Security is not a contract. The government has no contractual obligation to pay you benefits. Their only obligation is political.
Congress can raise, lower, or even eliminate Social Security benefits at any time. The only recourse you have is to vote them out of office.
There's even a Supreme Court case regarding this. You can look it up: Flemming V. Nestor 363 U.S. 603
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.
You might want to note the domain name that cite is from: ssa.gov. So, this is not just some blogger's opinion.
In this context, an "entitlement" is "benefits provided by law". That's exactly what Social Security is, and the law can be changed.
I always get flamed for this, and I will tell you in advance: save your breath. Pounding your chest and stomping on the ground won't change the fact: you have no contractual right to Social Security, no matter how much you have paid into it. Congress can take it away at any time, albeit at their own peril.
“Social Security...I am now 64. I...am now collecting.”
While it is sometimes necessary to do this, people should delay taking Social Security as long as possible prior to age 70 if they are in good health.
Prior to your official full benefit retirement age (mine is 66 years and 8 months) SS reduces your benefits by 8% a year.
Once your financial assets fall below $3,000 after age 60 (excluding IRAs and other retirement accounts) you can get food stamps (actually a SNAP card). This can often give you enough time to avoid getting an 8% SS benefit haircut.
Getting benefits at age 62 is very common for healthy people, but if you are likely to live to be 90 years old it can be an expensive mistake to take SS early.
That’s not the case.
Bingo ! Thank you !
Having paid into it specifically for 48 years myself, if Bitch McConnell tries to steal it to pay for illegal f’n aliens and ‘Rat giveaway programs I won’t take it lightly.