Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (10006)	8/3/2011 3:25:30 PM
From: Lane3	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

Payments due under Social Security are not property rights It ruled that benefits are not accrued as property, that there is no property right to SS. Property. (I assume you mean Fleming v Nestor.) If some gets no benefits because he died the day before he met the eligibility criteria, tough. If they change the law so that you aren't eligible, tough. You get nothing for all the years you paid in. Likewise if they means test it and you don't qualify despite having paid in top dollar all your life, you're out of luck. Here's a PDF from Cato that speaks to it. Myth 6. cato.org "...individuals have no right to Social Security benefits based on the taxes they've paid. Congress and the president can change or reduce Social Security benefits any time they choose." Like I said, if Congress and the President change the entitlement law and cut or eliminate benefits, then the government is not in default when it does not pay. The ruling does not speak to the government reneging on a benefit written into an extant law. Anyway, the question is not about anyone having a right, property or otherwise, to an entitlement but about whether the government not paying a legal financial obligation because it has no money would be called "default." If there is no money to pay, then the right to the benefit is irrelevant.