Wrong. SCOTUS decided otherwise in Flemming vs. Nestor
The Court ruled that no such contract exists, and that there is no contractual right to receive Social Security payments. Payments due under Social Security are not “property” rights and are not protected by the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The interest of a beneficiary of Social Security is protected only by the Due Process Clause.
Under Due Process Clause analysis, government action is valid unless it is patently arbitrary and utterly lacking in rational justification.
When I first paid into SS, the retirement age for full benefits was 65. In 1983 Congress changed it to 67 and it was signed by Ronald Reagan. Your SS contributions don't belong to you. The government can change the rules any time it wants.
There is this concept of a “ social contract” which yes, does not meet the legal standards of a business contract
Once the government breaches such a visible ( and for millions, life sustaining ) social contract as social security, then the government risks losing any remaining credibility in any future programs, leaving only coercion to control people and take their wealth
I don’t believe they are quite ready to go there, although preparations seem to be underway
The slow drip drip drip of a breach was set in place a long time ago.when SS collected funds were made accessible to be frittered in general spending and replaced by IOU’s .... As long as the federal reserve printing presses stayed going, nobody noticed or cared
As long as it was just taking a few more percentage in tax, pulling more people into mandatory “ contribution” like the military, raising the base income subject to the tax, raising the full retirement age by a few years... It stayed under the radar except for those directly impacted
There has to be “someone” now calculating how many seniors are expendable and how to make the working sheep see them as leeches and a burden on society so there is no objection , in fact popular support for dehumanizing yet another class of Americans