Replies

It ceased being “your money” the instant it left your pay check and your employer's checking account (you paid that part too even if you didn't see it). You were given nothing more than a political promise that a future generation would be taxed to finance your retirement. The money taken from you was not invested it was spent.

If said future generations do not wish to support your benefits they may via the political process amend, modify, or even eliminate the program.

I have no doubt that as a freeper you worked hard and are a decent person but Social Security is welfare. It is quite simply a redistribution of wealth that has about run its course.

Here is an excerpt of some language from a court case posted on the government website for Social Security:

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, FORPROTECTION 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. SEEWOLLENBERG, 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.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/nestor.html

Again I am not calling into question your work ethic nor am I saying you are somehow unworthy. I do not believe you are lazy. I also recognize you have probably worked hard your entire life and this may be all you have. I also recognize that you have been promised this benefit and may believe that because of those promises you are owed the money.

I am 15 years away from retirement myself and will have paid in, by then, far more than you did. I wont have much but I expect to receive nothing from SS. Yet I continue to pay 15% of my earnings to support your retirement.