For those who have worked for YEARS, and contributed to it, damn straight THEY have a right to it.<quoted text>Federal Government owes nothing to people is the point and it has been that way since 1960 when Pseudo Liberal SCOTUS ruled in the case of Flemming V Nestor and it is legal.
Is There a Right to Social Security?
By Michael D. Tanner
November 25, 1998
You worked hard your whole life and paid thousands of dollars in Social Security taxes. Now its time to retire. Youre legally entitled to Social Security benefits, right? Wrong. There is no legal right to Social Security, and that is one of the considerations that may decide the coming debate over Social Security reform.
Many people believe that Social Security is an earned right. That is, they think that because they have paid Social Security taxes, they are entitled to receive Social Security benefits. The government encourages that belief by referring to Social Security taxes as contributions, as in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act. However, in the 1960 case of Fleming v. Nestor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that workers have no legally binding contractual rights to their Social Security benefits, and that those benefits can be cut or even eliminated at any time.
Ephram Nestor was a Bulgarian immigrant who came to the United States in 1918 and paid Social Security taxes from 1936, the year the system began operating, until he retired in 1955. A year after he retired, Nestor was deported for having been a member of the Communist Party in the 1930s. In 1954 Congress had passed a law saying that any person deported from the United States should lose his Social Security benefits. Accordingly, Nestors $55.60 per month Social Security checks were stopped. Nestor sued, claiming that because he had paid Social Security taxes, he had a right to Social Security benefits.
The Supreme Court disagreed, saying 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. The Court went on to say,It is apparent that the non-contractual interest of an employee covered by the [Social Security] Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.
For SLACKERTICS and the entitlMENTALly warped who think the givverment "owes" them something for nothing-not no-but hell NO.
Time for Everyone to start contributing!
A National Flat sales tax ought to help ! NO EXCEPTIONS.