I'm 45. Will Social Security still be around when I'm ready to collect?

[Ecthy]

I'm 45.

points and

[Imran Siddiqui]

I believe the bolded part, JohnT, says a person who is covered by the act (ie, person collecting) has NO right in collecting Social Security, even though they paid into it. Therefore any lack of payment (ie, "defeasance of 'accrued' interes) does not violate the Due Process Clause.

I assume the argument by the plaintiff was that him paying in money to SS, without a guarentee he would get it back (depending on when he died), was depriving of his property (his money) without due process of law. The SCOTUS here basically said "shut up". You don't have a right to get your money back, so if the government doesn't pay you 'your share', that doesn't violate the Constitution.

The 'lockbox' is not addressed in that passage at all. I don't think the court would rule that a 'lockbox' would be unconstitutional. It'd definetly be dumb though .

[JohnT]

Gotcha. Thanks.

So does the "lockbox" idea essentially remove the provision in the Act that allows Congress to make adjustments to the Act as they see fit? Hell, can Congress even make a law that prevents Congress from amending that same law (leaving aside all political ramifications)?

Or is it campaign hooey, all sound and fury signifying nothing?

[Arrian]

I assume the argument by the plaintiff was that him paying in money to SS, without a guarentee he would get it back (depending on when he died), was depriving of his property (his money) without due process of law. The SCOTUS here basically said "shut up".

Bastards.

-Arrian

[Imran Siddiqui]

So does the "lockbox" idea essentially remove the provision in the Act that allows Congress to make adjustments to the Act as they see fit?

No, because any 'lockbox' plan would simply be another law. Congress would easily be able to make adjustments to that act in the future if it wanted to. After all, a 'lockbox' doesn't guarentee to individual recipients a certain amount of money (which would make it a property right), so it could be adjusted whenever.

[pchang]

Amendment

The only effective "lockbox" would be to pass it as a constitutional amendment.

[Kidlicious]

I'm against raising the retirement age. In fact bring it back to 55 years old. That will help us with our unemployment problem. Just raise taxes.

[chequita guevara]

Re: Transfer

Originally posted by pchang
You have to realize that the largest group in the left are white females.

Oh really?

[Imran Siddiqui]

He means left-of-center in the US, you are aware?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kidicious
I'm against raising the retirement age. In fact bring it back to 55 years old. That will help us with our unemployment problem. Just raise taxes.

[Jack_www]

Re: I'm 45. Will Social Security still be around when I'm ready to collect?

Originally posted by Lancer
What might I expect? Certainly I'll be collecting after the boomers...will they break the bank and leave me with naught?

-Concerned

I think one of two things will happen.
1.) That you etheir will get next to nothing or SS ends all togather.
2.) The government start selling a lot more bounds and we go into debt a few hunder billion dollars more.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

yes

[Jack_www]

I dont know why anyone in their right mind would count on Social Security. It pays next to nothing and you could not live you current life stly off it. What you could at most get $1000 bucks a month? You could not even pay the rent with that, or if you own your house by that time you would be living in proverty if that was all you got. ANd this is before the baby boom is going to hit.

[My Wife Hates CIV]

I didnt say at what level... but it will be something.

[Lancer]

Jack, in the Philippines you can still live very well on very little. In a land where a skilled carpenter/mason makes $5 a day, a laborer $3, $700 a month will set you up like a king, or at least a prince.

Ecthelion...many spend their youth laughing at older people. Eventually you find the joke is on you.