What Is The Moral Case For Paying Social Security Benefits?
It being widely accepted that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme (or worse), and that payments to current beneficiaries are effectively being made out of current taxation or borrowing, what is the moral case for continuing to make payments?
Social Security is a sacred trust!
Nope. It's just a law.
I've been paying in for years - it's my right to collect!
Nope. You paid tax, and it was spent. There is no real in to pay in to. There is nothing to collect.
But the Government made promises!
Government promises. Worth the chads they are written on. See also, the Constitution.
The politicians made promises!
The lying politicians (yes, a tautology) you voted for.
I relied on Social Security being available! I didn't know it could disappear!
For well over a generation the nature of Social Security has been widely known. Choosing to believe convenient lies doesn't create an obligation on people who didn't lie to you.
I can't buy food or shelter without Social Security!
Well, if you've sold all your assets, you have no family and no-one else is willing to help you, perhaps something might be done. But that's something different from Social Security as it currently exists.
I have to sell my assets? But I want to leave something to my kids!
Why should my kids have to pay for yours?
And so on.
So, is there a moral case for taking money from some people and giving it to other people that happen to be past a certain age? (Moral as distinct from political or tactical.)
- Comment (33)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Sep '11
Re: What Is The Moral Case For Paying Social Security Benefits?
genferei
So, is there a moral case for taking money from some people and giving it to other people that happen to be past a certain age? (Moral as distinct from political or tactical.) ·
Well, I don't know about "past a certain age," but there's certainly a moral case for caring for the infirm, orphaned children, the insane, and all others unable to care for themselves--our humanity demands that we do so. However, this is a function properly executed by private institutions or local government. If local governments are to be prevented from collecting taxes to care for the weak, then I can't imagine what they could be allowed to collect taxes for; paving roads? trash collection? but not for orphaned infants? However, the sort of thing is not a proper federal function, and in fact is not authorized by the Constitution. The federal government has no obligation to maintain payments on an unconstitutional (and therefore illegal) program. The states, municipalities, and churches can pick up the slack. Maybe even ACORN can pitch in!
Jun '10
Re: What Is The Moral Case For Paying Social Security Benefits?
Tenther
However, the sort of thing is not a proper federal function, and in fact is not authorized by the Constitution. The federal government has no obligation to maintain payments on an unconstitutional (and therefore illegal) program.
The Supreme Court ruled it Constitutional in Helvering v. Davis, finding that:
May '10
Re: What Is The Moral Case For Paying Social Security Benefits?
Mark Belling Fan
I thought the Supreme Court already ruled that there were no property rights to SS benefits? What am I missing? · Sep 13 at 2:18pm
Duane, I'd like to hear your explanation, too. Social Security is not a contract - it's legislation, and legislation can change. It's also not a defined contribution - it's a system of transfer payments: you're paying for current retirees, not paying into a fund for your own later benefit. However, I'm sure you're very aware of all this and have your reasons for what you said, so ... got any law here, counselor? (Especially since I've told my folks that if it were up to me I'd cut off their generation's Social Security cold turkey; I don't have a problem putting the wood to my elders but I certainly don't want to violate the sanctity of contracts!)
Edited on Sep 13, 2011 at 5:04pmJun '10
Re: What Is The Moral Case For Paying Social Security Benefits?
The King Prawn
Indeed. The Supreme Court already said there is no contract when it opined that "The proceeds of both taxes [employer and employee] are to be paid into the Treasury like internal revenue taxes generally, and are not earmarked in any way" in Helvering v Davis.
Do you believe the confiscatory and dishonest practices of the government erode its moral authority to lay and collect taxes?
I understand that Helvering takes the issue out of contract or property law per se, but the underlying concepts of deterimental reliance, as Duane stated, still weigh as equitable arguments.
The larger point you raise is the important one. If a government engages in corrupt bargains with public employee unions, the oldster lobby, or other special interests to maintain power by redistribution of wealth, there is certainly going to be a loss of legitimacy in the minds of those disadvantaged. The "moral" question will not be resolved but social cohesion will be degraded. Specifically with SS, many beneficiaries can be expected to devise strategems to avoid "means testing" and younger workers with heavy taxes and no expectation of benefits may easily rationalize "cheating" on their taxes. Not going to be pretty.
Mar '11
Re: What Is The Moral Case For Paying Social Security Benefits?
It isn't moral to break a commitment. One can regret doing so because it is beyond your ability to execute, but regret doesn't make it moral. People make other commitments based the first, so your default can have a wide impact.
Claiming that the US can't fulfill Social Security isn't accurate. We can't support both Social Security and Medicare at current growth projections. So make both actuarially sound -- cut the benefits and make the required large payments from the general fund over many years to pay back the "notes". Painful, yes. But the pain will be shared by all.
Much of the growth in Social Security is just that people are living longer and retiring later. The fixes are clear, but no one seems to be ready to say "work until 75 unless you'll drop, and that includes government workers, such as first responders and soldiers". Or I guess you could just ban flu shots and antibiotics for everyone on Social Security and let nature complete the actuarial rebalancing with much pain and suffering
And perhaps that pain is necessary to remind us to not make such idiotic commitments in the future?
Dec '10
Re: What Is The Moral Case For Paying Social Security Benefits?
Real wealth poured onto the blades of the government blender does not match the numbers written on the ingredients.
Every public employee’s nominal forfeiture of earnings recorded as FICA and then remitted back to the paymaster consists only of shuffling numbers.
Those earnings never added wealth to the treasury in the first place as they were in essence a transfer payment funded by private sector taxes.
In other words, the private sector pays the FICA twice (though not quite two times the same amount as public employees have not yet reached parity with private employees).
As the destabilizing shift in the number of employees from private to public payrolls further depletes public finances, the accounting of it is still largely underestimated because we are not measuring the number of tax dollars backed with wealth and those recirculating like emanations from the monetary penumbra.
The immorality of it all consists of the collectivist agenda to further pad the public payroll with more bodies who mindlessly vote for the perpetrators of the destruction of wealth. They then promote the exacerbation of grievances against wealth which forces the breaking of the bonds of solidarity among Americans. They are fomenting class warfare.
Sep '11
Re: What Is The Moral Case For Paying Social Security Benefits?
Joseph Stanko
Tenther
However, the sort of thing is not a proper federal function, and in fact is not authorized by the Constitution. The federal government has no obligation to maintain payments on an unconstitutional (and therefore illegal) program.
The Supreme Court ruled it Constitutional in Helvering v. Davis, finding that: · Sep 13 at 4:55pm
The Supreme Court was wrong. Madison said, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." Setting up a pension system for the elderly is not an enumerated power.
May '10
Re: What Is The Moral Case For Paying Social Security Benefits?
Mark Belling Fan
I thought the Supreme Court already ruled that there were no property rights to SS benefits? What am I missing? · Sep 13 at 2:18pm
Mark, there is a difference between declaring that you have a property right to your "paid-in account"- which indeed does not exist- and the very different theory of reliance. Over a certain age, you have relied on SS in establishing a retirement plan, this is more like estoppel used to prevent wholesale elimination of the program or a class of people not equipped to compensate for its disappearance.
SS is not a right or your property, but there are enough judges who would look for a legal theory to use to prevent elimination of SS for persons who had relied on its existence. The next issue would be what is a reasonable reform to implement to preserve the particular plaintiff class. There are a lot of alternatives
In Sweden, they shifted everyone to actual private accounts, with a supplemental welfare component for the indigent, and automatic escalators in savings as decreed by the retirement actuaries.
May '10
Re: What Is The Moral Case For Paying Social Security Benefits?
Duane Oyen
Mark, there is a difference between declaring that you have a property right to your "paid-in account"- which indeed does not exist- and the very different theory of reliance. Over a certain age, you have relied on SS in establishing a retirement plan, this is more like estoppel used to prevent wholesale elimination of the program or a class of people not equipped to compensate for its disappearance.
SS is not a right or your property, but there are enough judges who would look for a legal theory to use to prevent elimination of SS for persons who had relied on its existence. The next issue would be what is a reasonable reform to implement to preserve the particular plaintiff class. There are a lot of alternatives
In Sweden ...
Duane, whom would you sue? The United States? The president? The Secretary of the Treasury? Congress?
What relief would you seek? Compelling Congress to legislate Social Security back into existence? A judgment against the United States to be paid out in a treasury check?
And on what authority? Surely "Sweden did this..." isn't enough to claim Congress is estopped from legislating as it sees fit.
Jun '10
Re: What Is The Moral Case For Paying Social Security Benefits?
Tenther
Joseph Stanko
The Supreme Court ruled it Constitutional in Helvering v. Davis, finding that: · Sep 13 at 4:55pm
The Supreme Court was wrong. Madison said, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." Setting up a pension system for the elderly is not an enumerated power. · Sep 14 at 7:53am
While there are certainly some Supreme Court decisions I disagree with (e.g. Roe v. Wade), while they stand they do constitute the law of the land. Social Security may well be unwise or immoral, but calling it "illegal" seems like a stretch. Doesn't it stand the rule of law on its head to call something illegal just because you personally don't approve of it?
May '10
Re: What Is The Moral Case For Paying Social Security Benefits?
Matthew Gilley
Duane Oyen
....... estoppel used to prevent wholesale elimination of the program or a class of people not equipped to compensate for its disappearance.
SS is not a right or your property.... there are ....judges ..... legal theory .....to prevent elimination of SS for persons who had relied on its existence.
Duane, whom would you sue? The United States? The president? The Secretary of the Treasury? Congress?
What relief would you seek? Compelling Congress to legislate Social Security back into existence? A judgment against the United States to be paid out in a treasury check?
And on what authority? Surely "Sweden did this..." isn't enough to claim Congress is estopped from legislating as it sees fit. · Sep 14 at 5:21pm
Matthew:
1) I wouldn't sue anybody. I'm just the messenger stating what is likely to happen (based on an estoppel theory).
2) Offhand, I would guess some sympathetic plaintiff, representing the class, would pick the SS administrator as the target.
3) The form of relief would be up to the courts, of course. Injunctive relief, for starters.
And the issue is not modification of the program, but simply killing it with no off-ramp transition.
May '10
Re: What Is The Moral Case For Paying Social Security Benefits?
Duane Oyen
And the issue is not modification of the program, but simply killing it with no off-ramp transition. · Sep 15 at 9:33am
I wish we could have this conversation in person. Regarding the above, what would be the difference? Congress could kill it off at any time, cold turkey, if it wanted to (not likely, I know). I just fail to see how an estoppel claim makes it past a simple 12(b)(6) motion, especially after Twombly and Iqbal (not to mention that if Congress killed off Social Security, there wouldn't be an administrator to sue).
Sep '11
Re: What Is The Moral Case For Paying Social Security Benefits?
Joseph Stanko
Doesn't it stand the rule of law on its head to call something illegal just because you personally don't approve of it? · Sep 14 at 6:35pm
My reply's a bit late, but FWIW.
This link to www.constitution.org suggests that unconstitutional "laws" are actually not laws. So at least I'm not alone in deeming illegal those actions taken by the government to implement unconstitutional laws.
Practically, doesn't one get "standing" in court by "breaking" a "law?" Once you have standing, then you have a chance of having your actions ruled legal. So if I were to quit paying my SS taxes, the gov't would take me to court, and I could then proceed to argue the constitutionality of the Social Security laws. If I were acquitted (Clarence Thomas writing the majority opinion, no doubt), that would mean that my actions had been legal at the time I committed them. Wouldn't that suggest that the laws forcing me to pay SS taxes had not been legal? To say otherwise would mean that forcing me to pay taxes had been legal, and my refusal had also been legal, which seems contradictory.