Social Security's catch-22 is bad news for retirees

"My retirement plan is based on =zero= Social Security. Any I do get is gravy."

Close to my sentiment/position, but considerably more optimistic. I expect the Dims to liberate my retirement savings to buy more votes.

Go Trump.

That’s a concern for sure. Getting stuff out of tax-deferred plans is a priority if Dems are elected.

"That’s a concern for sure. Getting stuff out of tax-deferred plans is a priority if Dems are elected."

I don't expect them to stop at tax deferred plans, but my other savings, as well.

They will call a tax, what I call theft.

Actually the supreme court has ruled that it is a tax under the 16th amendment and therefore constitutional.

Sure, this power to tax is Constitutional after the 16th. But the power to spend it on a retirement plan? What section is that under? This is just like Obamacare - truly, it doesn't matter if Roberts pretends it's a tax or not, THE OTHER PART is what FedGov has never been given the power to do.

The government taxes for all types of programs. Hell, the military protects everyone, even Americans who have never paid a dime in taxes. At least with Social Security you, or your spouse or parent, has to pay into the system.

I use to be a get rid of Social Security person too. After much research (prompted by a buddy that’s also an Army Retiree and got hired by Social Security) I’ve come to the realization that Social Security has kept many millions of American out of poverty.

And the military is a natural function of the Federal Gov. But with SS, sure, everyone paid in to get it, but people shouldn't be REQUIRED to. Ignoring the Constitutional aspect, I should be able to opt out if I want. It's not the FedGov's role to play mommy and daddy for every one of our citizens. And, apparently, a bunch of non-citizens nowadays.
Yes, SS has certainly 'saved' a bunch of people, but that's still not something the FedGov should be doing. Let the States, or private charities handle it. If we really think it's something the FedGov should be in charge of, then there's a way to do that Constitutionally. Pass a damn amendment giving FedGov the powers.

I can agree it should have been created by a constitutional amendment instead of being snuck in as a tax. However your wrong that the court didn’t determine if the payments were constitutional. They did. Here is a part of that decision.

“Congress may spend money in aid of the “general welfare”. Constitution, Art. I, section 8; United States v. Butler, 297 U. S. 1, 65; Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, supra. There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents. Yet difficulties are left when the power is conceded. The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. Where this shall be placed cannot be known through a formula in advance of the event. There is a middle ground or certainly a penumbra in which discretion is at large. The discretion, however, is not confided to the courts. The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power is not an exercise of judgment.”

Since they are the tribunal that makes the determination on what is or is not constitutional it is incorrect to state it’s unconstitutional. Though you of course have every right to disagree with their reasoning and decision.

Since it’s been determined to be constitutional then the only recourse to change that determination is get another case in front of the Supreme Court and hope they overturn their previous ruling or pass a constitutional amendment to explicitly make it unconstitutional.

Since their has been no movement to pass such an amendment I’d have to assume most people like the program or are indifferent to it.

Since they are the tribunal that makes the determination on what is or is not constitutional it is incorrect to state it’s unconstitutional. Though you of course have every right to disagree with their reasoning and decision.

Since it’s been determined to be constitutional then the only recourse to change that determination is get another case in front of the Supreme Court and hope they overturn their previous ruling or pass a constitutional amendment to explicitly make it unconstitutional.

Exactly. Even the Supreme Court has been known to be wrong, and be overturned down the road. Unfortunately, we have too many Justices who believe in a living, changing Constitution, not Originalists like we need to have.

Even that bit of legalese is rather tortuous, considering their thought that the issue is the following: The line must still be drawn between one welfare and another, between particular and general. The true issue in that is what, exactly, defines "general Welfare"? And the framers were smart enough to define it for us. Article I, Section 8, is a list of the powers the FedGov has to support the General Welfare. Even so, how does forcing the populace to purchase a product (retirement account) in any way "General Welfare"?